By Our Reporter
Prime Minister Balendra Shah came to power promising a lean, efficient and accountable government. One of the headline reforms under his administration was the reduction of ministries from 25 to 18, a move presented as proof that the government was serious about cutting waste, improving coordination and delivering better governance. That message has now been weakened by another decision.
The Prime Minister has appointed 27 members to his personal secretariat, while the approved strength stands at 48. Among those appointed, the Chief Adviser and Political Adviser receive salaries, perks and facilities equivalent to those of cabinet ministers, while two other advisers enjoy benefits equal to state ministers. Though all appointments comply with existing rules, the size and structure of the secretariat raise legitimate questions about whether the government is practising the restraint it promised.
Good governance is not measured only by legal compliance. It is also judged by whether public institutions reflect the values leaders promote. A government that asks ministries to become smaller cannot afford to create another large structure around the Prime Minister’s Office. Even if the appointments follow established procedures, they leave the impression that bureaucracy is being shifted rather than reduced.
The contradiction is difficult to ignore. The government celebrated the reduction of ministries as a step towards lowering administrative costs and making decision making more efficient. Fewer ministries were expected to mean fewer political appointments, fewer overlapping responsibilities and less pressure on public spending. Yet a personal secretariat with 27 members, and room to expand further, sends a different message. Citizens naturally wonder whether savings achieved in one place are being offset elsewhere.
The issue goes beyond numbers. Every adviser carries financial costs, office space, administrative support and logistical arrangements. Four advisers enjoy ranks comparable to ministers and state ministers. These positions bring not only salaries but also official privileges funded by taxpayers. At a time when Nepal faces rising public debt, weak revenue growth and constant pressure to control recurrent expenditure, expanding the Prime Minister’s inner circle appears poorly timed.
Supporters may argue that modern governments need specialists. Policy making has become more complex. Digital transformation, economic planning, foreign affairs and public health all require expert advice. Few would dispute that a Prime Minister benefits from competent advisers. The real question is not whether advisers are necessary. It is how many are genuinely required to perform the job effectively.
Twenty-seven appointments suggest that the balance may have shifted from expertise towards excess. Nepal already has a permanent civil service staffed by experienced secretaries, joint secretaries and technical experts across ministries. The Prime Minister also receives institutional support from the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers, the National Planning Commission and numerous government agencies. Building another large advisory structure risks creating overlapping roles, blurred accountability and slower decision making rather than faster action.
Large advisory teams often create another problem. When too many people hold advisory titles, responsibility becomes diluted. It becomes harder to identify who shaped key policies or who should answer when decisions fail. Governments perform best when authority and accountability are clearly assigned. An oversized secretariat can complicate both.
This also affects public confidence. Balen built his political identity by presenting himself as different from traditional leaders. He criticised wasteful practices, promised efficient administration and appealed to voters frustrated by political privilege. Every decision is now judged against those commitments. Appointing dozens of advisers does not fit easily with the image of a government determined to trim unnecessary spending.
The symbolic impact may be even greater than the financial one. Citizens often accept difficult economic decisions when they see leaders sharing the burden. They become sceptical when governments preach austerity while expanding their own administrative structures. Public trust depends as much on perception as on accounting figures.
The government still has an opportunity to correct course. That does not require dismissing every adviser or rejecting expert input. Instead, the Prime Minister should conduct a transparent review of every advisory position. Each role should have clearly defined responsibilities, measurable performance targets and regular public reporting. Positions that duplicate existing government functions should be merged or eliminated. The number of advisers should reflect actual needs rather than administrative convenience.
A smaller, highly qualified advisory team would strengthen rather than weaken the Prime Minister’s ability to govern. It would also reinforce the government’s claim that efficiency begins at the top.
Balen entered office promising to break old habits. Reducing ministries was an important first step. Expanding the Prime Minister’s personal secretariat risks undermining that achievement. Legal authority may justify the appointments, but political judgment demands something more. Good governance requires consistency between promises and practice. If the government truly believes in a leaner state, that principle should begin in the Prime Minister’s own office.
Login to add a comment