KATHMANDU: The past week offered a revealing snapshot of Nepal’s changing political landscape under Prime Minister Balendra Shah. The developments ranged from government agreements with protest groups and promises of administrative reform to parliamentary accountability, provincial power struggles, economic policy adjustments and the continuing evolution of Nepal’s relationship with India.
Taken together, these events suggest a government attempting to establish itself as responsive, active and reform-oriented. Yet they also expose a familiar challenge in Nepali politics: announcing decisions is considerably easier than implementing them.
The week was marked by a series of agreements, committees, task forces, directives and policy reviews. The government reached out to aggrieved groups, announced measures to address microfinance-related problems, responded to public anger over electricity taxation, outlined plans for digital governance and signed performance agreements with ministers. At the same time, the Speaker directed the Prime Minister to answer lawmakers’ questions, reminding the government that political legitimacy requires not only executive action but also parliamentary accountability.
Meanwhile, political realignments in the provinces and the emergence of a new party advocating constitutional monarchy showed that Nepal’s political space remains fluid. The visit of the Indian Army chief, including the continuation of the traditional exchange of honorary military ranks, underscored the enduring importance of Nepal-India relations.
The central question emerging from the week is therefore not whether the government is active. It clearly is. The more important question is whether this activism will translate into durable institutional reform and measurable improvements in the lives of citizens.
Government under pressure to deliver
One of the strongest themes of the week was the government’s effort to demonstrate delivery. At its weekly briefing, the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers highlighted a broad range of activities, including digital governance, policy research, programme preparation, performance monitoring, fertilizer management, the promotion of domestic products and administrative discipline. The government approved a new committee to guide software development and operation in public bodies and announced that draft concept papers had been prepared for 65 programmes expected to have an immediate impact on citizens.
The Prime Minister also signed performance agreements with ministers and the Chief Secretary, establishing annual targets, performance indicators and monitoring mechanisms.
These measures indicate an attempt to introduce a more structured system of governance. Performance agreements, if implemented seriously, can help move the bureaucracy away from a culture in which responsibility is often collective and accountability is difficult to establish.
But the effectiveness of such agreements will depend on whether the targets are publicly measurable and whether failure to meet them has consequences. Nepal has seen many governments announce monitoring mechanisms and action plans. The weakness has generally not been the absence of policies but the gap between policy and implementation.
The same question applies to the proposed 65 programmes. The phrase “immediate impact” naturally raises public expectations. Citizens will eventually judge the government not by the number of concept papers prepared but by whether they experience improvements in public services, employment opportunities, prices, infrastructure and governance.
The government therefore faces an important test. It must demonstrate that this new emphasis on performance is more than a change in administrative language.
From protest management to structural reform
The government’s 14-point agreement with the Durga Prasai-led campaign was another major development of the week.
The agreement addressed several concerns raised by microfinance borrowers and others facing financial distress. It included provisions related to the blacklisting of borrowers, loan rescheduling, collateral auctions, advance cheques, blank promissory notes and complaints against financial institutions. The government also committed to studying demands related to loan waivers and forming a high-level committee to examine problems affecting microfinance institutions, borrowers and employees.
Politically, the agreement helped bring an immediate end to the protest programme. This was an important achievement because prolonged demonstrations in Kathmandu often create pressure not only on the government but also on the broader political environment.
However, the agreement also illustrates a deeper problem. The microfinance crisis cannot be resolved merely by managing protests.
There are genuine concerns about aggressive loan recovery practices, collateral valuation and the treatment of borrowers facing circumstances beyond their control. At the same time, any policy response must protect the financial system from moral hazard. A blanket approach to loan waivers, for example, could create serious consequences for financial institutions and ultimately for depositors and the wider economy.
The challenge is to distinguish between genuine victims of exploitative practices and borrowers who have the capacity to repay but seek political protection from financial obligations.
The government’s decision to study the problem and involve experts is therefore sensible. But committees should not become a mechanism for postponing difficult decisions. The real test will be whether the government can establish a transparent and credible framework that protects vulnerable borrowers without weakening financial discipline.
The agreement should be seen as the beginning of a policy process, not the final solution.
The Garima case and the demand for justice
The government also reached a three-point agreement with the parents of three-year-old Garima Chaudhary following a heinous crime against the child.
The agreement included a commitment to review existing legal provisions concerning serious crimes and punishments in line with public expectations. A committee was to prepare recommendations for possible legislative changes within seven days.
The case reflects the growing pressure on governments to respond quickly to incidents that generate widespread public outrage.
However, public anger often produces demands for harsher punishment, while the deeper problems of criminal justice receive less attention. The effectiveness of the justice system depends not only on the severity of punishment but also on the certainty and speed of investigation, prosecution and adjudication.
A stronger legal framework may be necessary. But the government must avoid the temptation to respond to every tragic incident primarily through symbolic measures or promises of new laws.
The more fundamental question is whether existing institutions are capable of protecting vulnerable citizens, investigating crimes professionally and ensuring justice without political or administrative interference.
If the government’s review results in meaningful reforms to investigation, victim protection and judicial procedures, the response could have a lasting impact. If it remains limited to a committee report, it will become another example of the state reacting to public outrage without addressing the structural weaknesses behind it.
Parliament reminds the executive of accountability
One of the politically significant developments of the week was Speaker Dol Prasad Aryal’s directive to Prime Minister Balendra Shah to attend the House of Representatives and answer lawmakers’ questions.
This development is important because it highlights the constitutional relationship between the executive and the legislature.
A government may communicate directly with the public through media briefings, social media and administrative announcements. But parliamentary democracy requires the executive to remain accountable to elected representatives.
The Prime Minister’s willingness to answer questions in Parliament will therefore be an important indicator of the government’s approach to democratic accountability.
For a government that has placed significant emphasis on efficiency and direct delivery, parliamentary scrutiny should not be seen as an obstacle. On the contrary, regular questioning can provide an opportunity to explain policies, defend decisions and demonstrate transparency.
The effectiveness of the government will ultimately depend not only on how quickly it can make decisions but also on whether those decisions can withstand public and parliamentary scrutiny.
Economic policy and the problem of mixed signals
The electricity tariff debate revealed one of the government’s more immediate policy challenges.
The Finance Ministry’s decision to impose VAT on electricity drew criticism because it increased costs for both households and industries. Soon afterward, the Energy Ministry began preparing measures to reduce electricity tariffs, particularly by considering concessional or seasonal rates during the monsoon, when surplus electricity is often generated but cannot be fully consumed.
The idea of encouraging domestic consumption of surplus electricity is economically attractive. Nepal has long faced the contradiction of generating surplus electricity during certain periods while industries and households continue to face high energy costs.
A seasonal tariff could potentially encourage industries to increase production during periods of abundant electricity. If designed properly, it could also help reduce wastage and strengthen domestic industrial competitiveness.
Yet the episode also reveals a lack of policy coordination. One branch of government introduced a tax that increased electricity costs, while another began exploring ways to reduce those same costs.
This creates confusion about the government’s broader economic direction.
A coherent policy would require the Finance and Energy Ministries to coordinate before major fiscal decisions are implemented. Tax policy, industrial policy and energy policy cannot operate independently if the government wants to promote domestic production and economic growth.
The government’s challenge is not simply to reduce electricity tariffs. It is to develop a consistent policy that balances revenue requirements with the need to support consumers and industries.
Administrative discipline and the limits of monitoring
The National Vigilance Center’s monitoring found hundreds of government employees failing to comply with prescribed office hours and other rules. Government agencies were instructed to take action against those found violating the code of conduct.
Such monitoring is useful because public frustration with government services often begins with everyday experiences: officials arriving late, absent staff, unnecessary delays and a lack of accountability.
But administrative reform cannot depend only on occasional inspections.
The deeper problem is institutional culture. Employees are unlikely to change their behavior permanently if monitoring exercises are temporary or if disciplinary action is inconsistent.
The government’s emphasis on performance agreements and office monitoring could become meaningful if these measures are connected. Ministers, senior bureaucrats and frontline employees should all operate within a system where responsibilities are clear and performance is regularly assessed.
Without such a system, monitoring can easily become a symbolic exercise that generates headlines but does not change public service delivery.
Provincial politics remains unstable
While the federal government focused on governance and policy initiatives, provincial politics continued to demonstrate Nepal’s fragile political arithmetic.
Sudurpaschim Chief Minister Khagaraj Bhatta secured a vote of confidence with support from the CPN-UML and lawmakers associated with the broader left alliance.
At the same time, the Rastriya Prajatantra Party suspended its Bagmati provincial parliamentary party leader Uddhav Thapa after he defied the party’s central directive and supported a rival candidate in the chief ministerial selection process.
These developments reflect a continuing weakness in Nepal’s provincial political system.
Provincial governments were established with the expectation that federalism would bring decision-making closer to citizens and create more responsive governance. However, provincial politics has often been dominated by changes in coalition arithmetic, party disputes and competition for executive power.
Frequent political instability makes long-term policy implementation difficult. Provincial governments need to demonstrate that they are more than smaller versions of unstable governments in Kathmandu.
The success of federalism will depend on whether provinces can develop stronger institutions, improve service delivery and pursue development policies suited to their specific needs.
A new space for monarchist politics
The emergence of the Jai Nepal Party, led by Dr. Dhawal Shumsher Rana, added another dimension to Nepal’s evolving political landscape.
The party has placed constitutional monarchy, Sanatan Dharma, democracy, good governance and economic prosperity at the center of its political agenda. It has also announced plans to expand its organization across all 77 districts and prepare for upcoming elections.
The emergence of a new party advocating constitutional monarchy should not be viewed in isolation.
It reflects a broader attempt by monarchist and conservative forces to capitalize on public dissatisfaction with established political parties. Frustration over corruption, political instability, unemployment and weak service delivery has created space for alternative political narratives.
However, dissatisfaction with the current political system does not automatically translate into support for a return to the past.
The success of new political forces will depend on whether they can move beyond criticism of existing parties and present credible solutions to contemporary problems.
The same principle applies to republican and mainstream parties. If established political institutions fail to deliver, alternative political narratives will naturally gain greater attention.
Nepal-India ties retain strategic importance
The visit of Indian Army Chief General Dhiraj Seth was another important event of the week.
President Ram Chandra Paudel conferred on him the honorary rank of General of the Nepali Army, continuing a longstanding tradition between the two countries. During the visit, General Seth held discussions with Nepali Army Chief General Ashok Raj Sigdel on strengthening military relations and cooperation. He also met Prime Minister Balendra Shah.
The continuation of the honorary rank tradition is symbolically important. It reflects the unique military relationship between Nepal and India and the historical links between their armed forces.
At a time when regional geopolitics is becoming increasingly complex, maintaining stable relations with India remains central to Nepal’s foreign policy and national interests.
The challenge for Nepal is to maintain productive relations with India while preserving strategic autonomy and balancing relationships with other major powers.
High-level military exchanges alone cannot resolve all bilateral issues, including trade, transit and border concerns. But they contribute to communication and confidence-building between two countries with deep historical, economic and security ties.
Cabinet decisions show the breadth of the government’s agenda
The Cabinet’s 11 decisions demonstrated the wide range of issues currently confronting the government.
They included a Japanese grant for improving air traffic control at Tribhuvan International Airport, increased remuneration for early childhood development facilitators and school employees, salary adjustments for teachers, a bilateral air services agreement with Saudi Arabia and amendments to financial legislation.
The decisions affecting education and school employees are particularly significant because they address long-standing concerns about disparities in remuneration.
Similarly, investment in air traffic control is important for improving aviation safety and efficiency.
However, the government should ensure that the growing list of decisions does not create an impression of fragmented policymaking. Cabinet activity is meaningful only when decisions are connected to broader national priorities.
The public does not necessarily evaluate a government by the number of decisions it makes. Citizens evaluate whether those decisions improve their daily lives.
From announcements to outcomes
Perhaps the most important conclusion from the past week is that the Balendra Shah government has demonstrated a strong desire to appear active and responsive.
The government has negotiated with protesters, formed committees, signed performance agreements, reviewed tariffs, announced digital governance measures and taken administrative decisions across several sectors.
This activism may help create momentum. But momentum alone is not governance.
The government must now establish clear timelines, measurable targets and public reporting mechanisms. Each major announcement should answer several simple questions: What exactly will be done? Who is responsible? When will it be completed? How will success be measured?
This is particularly important for the 14-point agreement with the protest movement, the proposed solutions to microfinance problems, the 65 citizen-impact programmes and the performance agreements signed with ministers.
If these initiatives produce visible results, the government could begin changing public expectations about what executive leadership can achieve.
If they remain limited to announcements and committees, public enthusiasm could quickly turn into disappointment.
The real test begins now
The events of the past week reveal a government facing multiple and often competing pressures. It must respond to economic hardship while maintaining financial discipline. It must satisfy demands for justice while preserving due process. It must pursue efficiency while remaining accountable to Parliament. It must manage political instability while delivering long-term policy reforms.
There is no shortage of activity.
But Nepal’s political history is full of governments that were busy without necessarily being effective.
The coming weeks will therefore be crucial for the Balendra Shah government. The agreements reached, committees formed and policies announced during the past week have created expectations. Those expectations can no longer be managed through communication alone.
The government now needs implementation.
For citizens struggling with debt, rising living costs, weak public services and economic uncertainty, the real measure of governance will not be the number of weekly achievements presented at a media briefing. It will be whether government action produces a difference that can be felt beyond Singha Durbar.
The past week may therefore be remembered as a period when the government set out an ambitious agenda. Whether it becomes the beginning of a more accountable and delivery-focused administration, or another chapter in Nepal’s long history of promises followed by weak implementation, will depend entirely on what happens next.
Comment