Government Reshuffle Debate Should Not Overshadow Performance and Accountability

Editorial

On the same day Prime Minister Balendra Shah signed performance agreements with his ministers, the main opposition CPN-UML urged Rastriya Swatantra Party Chair Rabi Lamichhane to initiate a restructuring of the government, including a change in the prime minister. On one side, the government is attempting to bind ministers to measurable targets. On the other, questions are being raised in Parliament over the government’s leadership and working style. Rather than viewing these developments separately, they should be understood as part of the growing demand for results-oriented governance and parliamentary accountability.

Performance agreements are not inherently a bad practice. If ministerial responsibilities, policies and programmes, budget commitments and deadlines are linked to measurable indicators, they can help make governance more result-oriented. But such agreements are not new to Nepal. Similar arrangements between prime ministers and ministers, and between ministers and secretaries, have been introduced in the past. The problem has not been the absence of agreements, but weak monitoring, evaluation and responsibility for failure. If there are no consequences when agreed targets are missed, the signed documents risk becoming little more than administrative formalities.

If the present government wants to distinguish this exercise from earlier attempts, it should periodically make the results public. Citizens should be able to know which ministries have met their targets, which commitments remain unfulfilled, why projects were delayed, how budget expenditure corresponds to actual outcomes, and who is responsible when agreed objectives are not achieved. Without transparent evaluation, performance agreements can easily be reduced to political presentation rather than administrative reform.

At the same time, calls for government restructuring are not unusual in a democracy. Opposition parties have every right to criticise the government, demand leadership changes and present alternative political proposals. But demands for restructuring should also be grounded in evidence, performance and a credible alternative. Warnings of mass mobilisation or political pressure alone are not enough. The opposition must be able to explain where the government has failed, which policies are flawed, and what it would do differently. The quality of democratic competition is measured not only by the intensity of criticism but also by the credibility of the alternative being offered.

For the Shah government, its relationship with Parliament is equally important. In a parliamentary system, a government derives legitimacy from the electoral process, but its day-to-day political accountability is exercised through Parliament. Popular support, direct communication with the public or influence on social media cannot substitute for parliamentary scrutiny. Responding to lawmakers, defending government decisions and appearing before the House to explain policies and outcomes are fundamental political responsibilities of the prime minister. The question-and-answer session with the prime minister scheduled for August 26 should therefore be treated not merely as another parliamentary procedure, but as an opportunity to strengthen the relationship between the executive and the legislature.

The present moment is also a test for the RSP. The relationship between party chair Rabi Lamichhane and Prime Minister Shah, or speculation about changes in the Cabinet, is less important than the question of institutional responsibility between the ruling party and the government. A political party cannot claim credit when the government succeeds while treating the government as a separate entity whenever difficult decisions or failures arise. The ruling party must be clear about its responsibility for government policy, ministerial performance and the broader political direction of the administration.

Nepal does not simply need another cycle of changing governments. It needs effective governance. Replacing ministers may sometimes be necessary, and changing a prime minister is also a legitimate constitutional option. But changing individuals alone will not resolve structural problems in governance. If institutional weaknesses, delayed decision-making, poor implementation, weak administrative accountability and inadequate engagement with Parliament remain unchanged, new ministers or even a new prime minister will eventually confront the same difficulties.

The central debate, therefore, should not be limited to whether the government survives or is reshuffled. The more important questions are whether the government is delivering on its commitments, whether Parliament is exercising effective oversight, and whether political parties are providing citizens with credible alternatives. The real test of performance agreements will be found not in signatures but in results. Likewise, the credibility of the opposition will be demonstrated not through warnings, but through workable alternatives.

The stability of democracy ultimately depends not merely on the ability to replace governments, but on the institutional culture that makes governments accountable.