Judge a Majority Government by Results, Not by Speculation About Mid-Term Elections

Nepal’s politics has yet to shed the long-standing habit of calculating a government’s lifespan soon after it is formed. Political debate is often dominated by speculation over how long a government will survive, who might withdraw support, and whether the country could be pushed towards a mid-term election. Nepali Congress leader Dr. Shashank Koirala has expressed dissatisfaction with the performance of the current government, saying there is no certainty that it will complete a full five-year term and that the possibility of a mid-term election cannot be ruled out. It is natural for opposition leaders or those outside the government to criticise its performance. But the central question at present is not when the government may fall. It is what results it delivers in accordance with the mandate it has received.

The current government has a clear political foundation of majority support in Parliament. It would therefore be inappropriate to assume that it faces the same immediate threat of collapse from minor political imbalances that frequently destabilised fragile coalition governments in the past. A majority, however, is not proof of success in itself. On the contrary, a clear mandate places an even greater responsibility on the government. Previous governments often cited political instability as a reason for weak performance. Such an excuse should no longer be acceptable.

The government has already presented its policies and programmes. Therefore, criticism that there are “no new policies” should not be treated as a literal factual description, but rather as a political expression of dissatisfaction with the gap between policies on paper and outcomes experienced by citizens. A government should be judged not by the number of programmes written into official documents, but by their implementation. Tangible improvements in governance, corruption control, employment, public services, education, healthcare, infrastructure and the economy will ultimately determine the government’s performance.

This is precisely where the government needs to exercise greater seriousness. A strong mandate creates strong expectations. When those expectations are not met, disappointment can deepen just as rapidly. Citizens who voted with the expectation of change are looking for decisions rather than speeches, implementation rather than announcements, and results rather than publicity. Initial political popularity is not a permanent asset. Once in government, public confidence can be sustained only through performance.

At the same time, discussion of a mid-term election should also be approached responsibly. In a democracy, no government is permanently secure and political circumstances can change. But when a government retains a clear parliamentary base, repeatedly raising the prospect of an early election without a concrete political basis can contribute more to a psychology of uncertainty than to a constructive search for solutions. Nepal has already paid a considerable price for prolonged political instability. Political competition should now focus less on how to bring down a government and more on who can offer the better model of governance.

The role of the opposition is equally important. It must identify the government’s shortcomings, raise questions backed by facts and present credible policy alternatives. Simply predicting that the government has failed or that an election may come early is not sufficient. Criticism of the government is necessary, but building a convincing alternative is just as important.

The government, for its part, must not treat its majority as a political shield. Parliamentary numbers may keep a government in office, but they cannot by themselves preserve public trust. Public confidence requires measurable results.

For that reason, Nepal’s political debate should now focus not on mid-term elections, but on governance and performance. The government should not be judged only by whether it survives for five years, but by how effectively it uses each year available to it. In a democracy, the final judgment is delivered not by political speculation, but by citizens’ lived experience and, ultimately, by their vote.