KATHMANDU, July 12: “Roads that should be completed in two years remain unfinished for 20. From now on, contractors must finish roads on time—even if they have to be tied to trees, made to sleep on the road, or locked in sheds.”
This was the remark made by Prime Minister Balendra Shah, then senior leader of the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), during an election rally in Dhangadhi. Construction contractors objected to the statement, but many others viewed it not merely as campaign rhetoric aimed at winning votes, but as an expression of the public's frustration over years of politically protected contractors delaying road projects.
Citizens disillusioned with traditional political parties did not simply applaud Shah's speeches—they overwhelmingly backed the RSP in the general election held on March 5. Barely four years after its formation, the party secured close to a two-thirds mandate. Shah was sworn in as prime minister on March 27. Just as the election reflected extraordinary public confidence in him, expectations from his government have been equally high.
There is a saying that the morning foretells the day. Shah's gestures and posture during his oath-taking ceremony not only raised questions but also sent ripples through different state institutions. Citizens eager for economic development and good governance gave the government the benefit of the doubt, hoping it would deliver. Yet the direction and pace with which the government has moved through its first 100 days have not offered encouraging signs.
Echoing Shah's own campaign rhetoric almost word for word, Infrastructure Development Minister Sunil Lamsal—one of his close confidants—has also adopted a confrontational tone in public. Instead of emphasizing due process and the rule of law, the minister has repeatedly threatened physical action not only against contractors but also against elected local and provincial officials.
"If any mayor fails to work, disrespects the people or neglects public service, inform us. We will take action against the mayor. If a provincial minister does the same, we will even jail that minister. Don't worry—we will make people work," he said.
Town hall by ex-Malaysian leader Mahathir marred by violence
Although such remarks, made during inspections of the Nagdhunga–Muglin road along the Prithvi Highway and later in Tanahun, may initially sound appealing, they run contrary to democratic governance and the rule of law.
In a pluralistic democracy, claiming "only I have done the right thing" is not democratic. Nor is trying to portray everything done by previous governments as entirely wrong. Earlier governments attempted the same approach, and the public rejected it. The current government now appears to be following a similar path. There are growing signs that those who express dissent or criticism risk being sidelined, denied opportunities or even subjected to legal action.
Whether it is the Constitutional Council's recommendation for the appointment of the chief justice or Wednesday's appointment of the chief secretary, recent decisions have only reinforced public suspicion. Rather than merely fueling dissatisfaction, they have created a sense of insecurity among professionals and eroded trust in the government.
The government earned popularity by scrapping more than 1,500 appointments made by previous administrations. Yet even after three months, it has failed to refill many of those vacant positions, raising serious questions about its administrative capacity. Moreover, the appointments have favored individuals close to the government, particularly retired security officials. While any capable citizen deserves an opportunity to serve, increasing dependence on retired security personnel raises concerns about whether democratic values and norms may gradually come under strain.
Prime Minister Shah has remained distant from the people who elected him. Since winning the election, he has not even returned to his own constituency. More importantly, he has continued to ignore Parliament—the country's supreme representative institution.
Not only has the prime minister largely avoided public engagement, but his office has reportedly discouraged cabinet ministers from attending public events. Ministers need not spend their days cutting ribbons at inaugurations, but imposing broad restrictions on their participation in public functions sends the wrong message.
The Speaker has also failed to issue a ruling requiring the prime minister to attend Parliament and answer lawmakers' questions. This has weakened Parliament's constitutional role of holding the executive accountable. If the prime minister continues to become less answerable to Parliament and increasingly acts unilaterally, who will provide the necessary checks and balances? Around the world, there are many examples of democratically elected governments gradually consolidating control over state institutions and paving the way toward authoritarian rule.
The question today is not whether this government has already embarked on that path. Rather, if it continues governing in the same manner as previous administrations, it will fail to meet public expectations. Misuse of state resources must certainly be stopped, and where past abuses occurred, those responsible must be investigated.
At present, however, a narrative is being built that everyone engaged in business or wealth creation is somehow suspect. Such a narrative will only encourage capital flight. Ironically, if wealth itself becomes something to be viewed negatively, members of the current cabinet may end up bearing the greatest burden of that perception. The public did not simply vote for new occupants of Singha Durbar; they voted for a change in the way the country is governed.
The government must move forward by building trust and confidence—not by intimidating the civil service, the judiciary, the media or the private sector. Fear may create temporary silence, but that silence is deceptive. If it eventually erupts, the consequences can be severe. The RSP-led government would do well to remember this.
The government needs to change not only its pace but also its governing style. Until it does, public confidence in it is unlikely to endure.
-1200x560-1774606010.webp)
