Six Months in Power: A Show of Strength Cannot Conceal Weaknesses in Governance
Muna Chand
The government led by Balendra Shah has completed six months in office. That may be too soon to judge every long-term pledge, but it is enough time to see how the government uses its authority, responds to criticism and treats citizens seeking public services. The central question for a government elected amid high expectations of change is whether the conduct of the state has changed, or only its language.
The government promised to act against corruption and impunity. Fulfilling that promise requires impartial investigations, preserved evidence and sound prosecutions. Yet the arrests of former prime minister K. P. Sharma Oli, former home minister Ramesh Lekhak and others, followed by court orders for their release, have raised questions about the government’s preparation. Release by a court does not establish innocence; arrest does not establish guilt. Declaring political victory at the investigative stage weakens both principles.
After Oli and Lekhak were taken into custody, Home Minister Sudhan Gurung publicly declared that no one was above the law. The principle is sound, but the government must be its first and most careful practitioner. A commission’s report or public anger may provide grounds for investigation. Neither can replace a lawful basis for arrest, sufficient evidence or preparation for prosecution. Gurung’s subsequent acknowledgment that the arrests required better preparation exposed the gap between the government’s declarations and its institutional capacity.
The treatment of former chief justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana has brought that gap into sharper focus. Police say he was brought to their office for his protection, rather than arrested. Questions remain about what happened and under what legal authority. If Rana faced a security threat, the state had a duty to protect him. If he was held against his will, the legal basis and procedure must be made clear. The government should publish a written account and answer the questions raised. Ambiguity in a case involving a former head of a constitutional institution damages confidence in the institutions themselves.
These cases should not be reduced to arguments for or against former officeholders. The rule of law is tested when the rights of critics, rivals and unpopular figures must be protected. An unclear power used readily against an opponent today may be used against an ordinary citizen tomorrow. Good intentions do not prove that due process was followed. Powerful people must face scrutiny, but the measure of success is an investigation that withstands judicial examination, not the spectacle of an arrest.
The government’s relationship with the private sector reveals a similar problem. The state has a duty to investigate credible information about tax evasion, financial misconduct and other economic offences. Yet raids on homes and offices, arrests of businesspeople and subsequent releases have prompted questions about investigative standards and official communication. It would be wrong to call every enforcement action politically motivated. It is equally wrong for the government to present every suspicion as though it were a finding of guilt. Investors do not need immunity from the law; they need confidence that clear rules apply equally to everyone.
The prime minister’s discussions with business leaders are welcome, but meetings alone cannot restore trust. Tax and regulatory agencies should be able to perform their routine duties without political theatre. Clear grounds for inquiry, defined institutional authority and consistent legal procedures would allow honest businesses to operate while ensuring that suspected wrongdoing is investigated. A government that repeatedly has to reassure businesses about uncertainty created by its own conduct has a policy problem to address.
Citizens encounter the government more directly through public services. Unanswered calls to government offices, online complaint systems that fail to work as announced, and delays in services and recovery after disasters are basic but decisive tests of good governance. They cannot be dismissed as minor administrative faults. A promise of digital service means little unless people know when they will receive an answer, can track a complaint and can identify who is responsible for resolving it.
It would be premature to conclude that everything the government has done in six months has failed. Opposition criticism must also be assessed against evidence. But citizens do not need the opposition’s permission to question those in power. A strong electoral mandate gives the government an opportunity to pursue reform; it does not place the government above procedure. Confident statements from the prime minister and ministers may sustain hope for a time. Citizens will ultimately judge the quality of investigations, access to services and accountability for decisions.
The government should now review the legal and administrative handling of disputed detentions and arrests, acknowledge mistakes where they occurred and correct the procedures. It should make economic investigations more predictable and tie public-service pledges to measurable results. A government can appear to move quickly without moving in the right direction. Its true test is whether it can deliver results while protecting the rights of the people it governs.
