KATHMANDU, May 4: The government, headed by Balendra Shah, chose to suspend an already summoned meeting of Parliament and then proceeded to introduce several ordinances. This has drawn significant criticism because Parliament is the primary forum where bills should be debated and laws enacted. When a government with a strong majority decides to bypass the sovereign Parliament, people naturally begin to question its motives.
The Constitution does allow governments to promulgate ordinances. Nepal’s Constitution, specifically Article 114, permits ordinances when Parliament is not in session and there is an urgent need. In principle, this is meant to serve as a mechanism for emergencies. In practice, however, it increasingly appears to be used as a shortcut. The government’s explanation is not entirely unreasonable. Rabi Lamichhane, leader of the ruling RSP, along with Law Minister Sobita Gautam and others, has argued that the regular legislative process often causes delays, with bills stalled in committees and obstructed by opposition parties.
They contend that such delays undermine their reform agenda, causing momentum to fade. The government claims it is keen to move quickly on issues such as cooperatives, public appointments, land management, university governance, and money laundering. Most notably, it seeks to address appointments to various constitutional bodies. According to them, these matters are urgent, and swift action is necessary to deliver results before public patience runs out.
Speed in governance is important. However, when speed comes at the cost of proper scrutiny, it begins to resemble impatience rather than efficiency, potentially putting democratic values at risk. A government with a strong parliamentary majority should not typically face difficulty passing legislation. It can navigate committees and build consensus if it chooses to do so. When such a government avoids Parliament, it raises suspicions—whether it fears internal dissent or seeks to avoid public debate altogether.
Govt recommends president to issue five ordinances
The timing of these ordinances further deepens concerns. The Cabinet initially recommended convening Parliament, then advised postponing it, and subsequently moved ahead with ordinances. This sequence appears less like careful planning and more like tactical evasion. Even President Ram Chandra Paudel has adopted a cautious approach, reviewing the ordinances instead of approving them outright—an indication that the situation is far from routine.
The substance of the ordinances, particularly the one concerning the Constitutional Council, has also raised alarm. Allowing a smaller group—just three members instead of the previously required five or six—to make key decisions could concentrate excessive power in a few hands. Similarly, ordinances related to universities and health academies may enable the removal of officials without clear succession plans, potentially creating instability and inviting legal challenges.
To be fair, ordinances are not inherently problematic. In parliamentary systems, they serve a legitimate purpose during emergencies, such as natural disasters or urgent financial crises, when waiting for the full legislative process is impractical. They can also help implement long-delayed reforms and allow governments to act swiftly when needed. However, when used excessively or hastily, they raise serious concerns. Ordinances bypass debate, limit parliamentary oversight, and reduce transparency. More importantly, frequent reliance on them risks normalizing an exceptional process, setting a precedent for future governments to follow.
What appears expedient today can quickly become routine. That is precisely what worries many observers. Opposition parties argue that this is less about urgency and more about consolidating power—and their concerns are not without merit.
When governments resort to extraordinary measures under normal circumstances, institutional norms begin to erode. There is also a degree of political irony. Leaders such as Rabi Lamichhane have previously criticized the overuse of ordinances as an attack on parliamentary authority. Now, under his party’s leadership, similar practices are being repeated. Such inconsistencies weaken credibility.
In the short term, this approach may yield quick results—laws amended, appointments made, and reforms initiated. However, in the long run, it risks damaging public trust. Governance is judged not only by outcomes but also by processes.
To restore confidence, the government should promptly present these ordinances to Parliament for full debate. Open and transparent discussion—even if contentious—is essential in a democracy. It should also avoid bundling numerous legal changes into single, sweeping ordinances, particularly when dealing with sensitive reforms. Engaging the opposition on critical national issues is equally important; a government with a two-thirds majority should not shy away from dialogue. Finally, it must clearly justify the urgency behind its actions, as vague explanations only erode trust. Reforms should be guided by clear timelines, well-defined objectives, and transparent expectations.
Ultimately, while the government may be seeking quick wins through ordinances, it risks losing something far more difficult to regain: public trust.
