The Pace of Reform and the Intensity of Resistance: A Four-Month Review of the Balen Government

As Prime Minister Balendra Shah’s government approaches four months in office, it stands out as an unusual experiment in Nepali politics. His journey from rapper and metropolitan mayor to the country’s executive leadership is itself an unexpected political development. Yet the first four months have not delivered a final verdict on the government’s success or failure. What they have shown is a government moving forward with an intense desire for change, but repeatedly colliding with legal procedures, institutions and constitutional limits.

The government’s most powerful message has come from its efforts to control corruption and hold former rulers accountable. Former prime minister KP Sharma Oli and then home minister Ramesh Lekhak were arrested following recommendations by the Gauri Bahadur Karki-led Commission of Inquiry into the loss of life during the Gen Z movement. Detaining a former head of government for a criminal investigation was no ordinary event in Nepal’s political history. It sent a powerful message that holders of public office are not above the law.

However, the same episode also raised questions about the government’s legal preparation and procedural maturity. The Supreme Court ordered their release after the authorised period of investigation expired. They were not released because they had been cleared of the allegations, but because sufficient grounds and procedures were lacking to justify their continued detention. This cannot therefore be treated as proof that the campaign against corruption or impunity has failed. It has, however, demonstrated that evidence capable of surviving judicial scrutiny and investigations conducted in accordance with the law are more important than politically dramatic arrests.

The establishment of the Asset Investigation Commission was another ambitious government initiative. The commission began work with a mandate to examine the assets of political officeholders and senior government officials who had served between fiscal years 2005/06 and 2025/26. Reports indicated that around 12,000 individuals submitted their asset declarations. This appeared to mark the beginning of an institutional effort to scrutinise public wealth and the lifestyles of officials over the past two decades.

The Supreme Court, however, raised serious questions about the commission’s formation, jurisdiction, personal privacy and authority to investigate constitutional officeholders. Following an interim court order, the commission suspended the collection and examination of asset declarations. The episode made clear that the government’s intentions and the legal validity of its actions are two separate matters. A strong campaign against corruption is necessary, but the government cannot exceed the jurisdictions assigned by the Constitution to the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority, the Judicial Council, Parliament and other institutions.

The Department of Money Laundering Investigation also reported that it had filed seven cases against 121 defendants in fiscal year 2025/26, claiming approximately Rs 118.05 billion in damages. This is not property that the government has already seized or confiscated; it is an amount claimed before the courts. The final outcomes of the cases will be determined only after judicial examination. On such matters, both the government and the media must clearly distinguish among an investigation, an allegation, a damages claim and a conviction by a court.

The decision to reduce the size of the administrative structure is another notable government initiative. The budget for fiscal year 2026/27 announced plans to reduce the number of federal ministries from 22 to 18, abolish 31 government agencies, merge six, transfer another six and restructure 18 institutions. The decision was necessary in the context of an administrative system long burdened by overlapping responsibilities, unnecessary offices, political appointments and high operating costs.

However, announcing the abolition of an agency in a budget statement is not the same as closing it in practice and transferring its employees, property, liabilities and services to another institution. Many government bodies were established through laws, regulations or formation orders. Their removal requires legal amendments, employee-management plans and clear arrangements to ensure continuity of services. The actual achievement of administrative restructuring must therefore be measured in the coming year by how much government expenditure falls, how quickly services are delivered and how much convenience citizens experience.

The government has said that 70 of its 100 governance-reform action points have been implemented, that progress on 17 has exceeded 80 percent and that achievement on the remaining 13 is below 60 percent. It claims overall progress of 87.2 percent. Such a high figure within four months may appear encouraging, but a decision being taken, a process being initiated and citizens receiving actual results cannot be assessed under the same standard.

There is a natural risk that a government evaluating its own programme will present a more favourable picture of its achievements. Unless the starting point, target, cost, timetable and measurable outcome of each action point are made public, it will be difficult to verify the 87.2 percent claim independently. The government should now make its performance data openly available so that the Office of the Auditor General, parliamentary committees, civil society and independent research institutions can examine its report.

The budget of approximately Rs 2.124 trillion presented for fiscal year 2026/27 prioritises infrastructure, technology, health, education, production and administrative reform. Its size and priorities demonstrate the government’s ambition. But a large budget is not an achievement in itself. Nepal’s long-standing problem is not the announcement of budgets, but spending capacity, project selection, procurement procedures, timely construction and the quality of outcomes. If capital expenditure remains weak, the government’s transformative claims may be confined to speeches.

The expansion of digital public services is one of the government’s positive directions. Efforts to connect citizenship recommendations, business registration, land administration, driving licences and government file management to online systems could reduce intermediaries, delays and unnecessary personal contact. However, launching a website or software platform alone does not constitute digital reform. Systems must operate continuously, reach the local level, protect data, provide services on time and preserve alternatives for citizens without digital access.

Criticism of the government is concentrated mainly in three areas: its style of governance, constitutional procedure and the implementation of federalism. Allegations that the government has preferred ordinances despite holding a strong majority in Parliament have raised questions about its democratic commitment. Ordinances are legitimate instruments provided by the Constitution. But using them to introduce extensive policy changes when a regular parliamentary session is possible weakens parliamentary debate and public scrutiny.

The government clearly wants speed, but in a democracy, procedure cannot be treated as synonymous with delay. Parliamentary debate, committee scrutiny, questions from the opposition and stakeholder participation are not obstacles to reform; they are safeguards against bad decisions. Rather than bypassing Parliament, a government with a nearly two-thirds majority has a major opportunity to build broad legitimacy through it.

The government’s direction on federalism also remains unclear. Long-standing problems continue in relation to provincial police, the federal civil service, educational authority and administrative coordination among the three levels of government. Claims that Rastriya Swatantra Party Chair Ravi Lamichhane formally proposed abolishing the provincial structure are inaccurate. He has argued for restructuring provincial assemblies and governments and has clarified that the party does not support abolishing the provinces. Nevertheless, until a clear restructuring framework is presented, doubts will remain over whether the government is making federalism more effective or gradually weakening it.

Resistance to the government should not be viewed through a single lens. When corruption investigations, administrative cuts and interventions in long-established systems of privilege begin, resistance from affected interest groups is not unexpected. Contractors, intermediaries, politically protected businesses and appointment-based networks that have benefited from the state for decades may feel threatened by the new arrangement.

But it is even more dangerous to portray every criticism of the government as a conspiracy by corrupt forces. Constitutional questions raised by the courts, complaints that Parliament has been bypassed, the centralisation of power, weak legal preparation and limited communication are genuine democratic concerns. An objective review is impossible when government supporters see only achievements and opponents see only failures.

Prime Minister Shah’s communication style is another area requiring improvement. Brief messages through social media have long been his preferred method of communication. But governing a country is broader and more complex than managing a metropolitan city. Regular press conferences, direct answers in Parliament, institutional dialogue with provincial governments, transparent engagement with the diplomatic community and clear explanations of policy decisions are essential. Silence may sometimes appear disciplined, but prolonged silence creates an information vacuum that is filled by speculation, rumours and hostile narratives.

In the next phase, the government should focus on three priorities. First, corruption investigations must be based on evidence, law and institutional capacity rather than political spectacle. Second, announcements of administrative reform must be converted into measurable results, with data on the time, cost and quality of public services made available to the public. Third, federalism, Parliament and constitutional bodies should be treated not as obstacles but as partners in reform.

The first four months of the Balendra Shah government have brought both hope and apprehension. Its courage in challenging old political structures, activism against corruption, administrative restructuring and direction toward digital services are positive. But hastily prepared legal action, repeated confrontations with the courts, reliance on ordinances, uncertainty over federalism and limited public communication have also raised questions about its credibility.

It would be an exaggeration either to declare the government a historic success or to dismiss it as a complete failure at this stage. The real test will not lie in announcements, arrests or percentages, but in cases that withstand judicial scrutiny, services experienced by citizens, budgets actually implemented, institutions strengthened and democratic standards preserved.

Change is never easy. But if constitutional procedures are weakened in the name of change, reforms may become dependent on individuals and remain temporary. If the Balen government can balance speed with due process, determination with dialogue, and political courage with institutional dignity, it can establish the foundations for lasting change in Nepal’s system of governance. If that balance is lost, the momentum for reform risks becoming trapped in polarisation, resistance and legal disputes.