{"id":19476,"date":"2026-07-01T07:44:07","date_gmt":"2026-07-01T01:59:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/eng.dragonmedia.com.np\/?p=19476"},"modified":"2026-07-01T07:44:07","modified_gmt":"2026-07-01T01:59:07","slug":"balen-governments-100-days-an-unfinished-journey-from-popular-mandate-to-institutional-governance","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/eng.dragonmedia.com.np\/?p=19476","title":{"rendered":"Balen Government\u2019s 100 Days: An Unfinished Journey from Popular Mandate to Institutional Governance<\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

# Prem Sagar Poudel<\/strong><\/p>\n

As the government led by Prime Minister Balendra Shah completes its first 100 days, Nepal stands at an unusual political turning point. This is not merely a routine evaluation of a new government\u2019s first hundred days. It is also the initial test of a society exhausted by the old party-based governance culture, yet hopeful, angry and experimental in its search for new-generation leadership. Therefore, this government should be assessed neither through blind support nor blind opposition. The question is not only whether Balendra Shah is popular. The real question is whether his leadership has been able to transform a popular mandate into constitutional, institutional, result-oriented and socially just governance.<\/p>\n

Balendra Shah\u2019s rise cannot be understood simply as the appeal of one individual. Behind it lies public frustration with old political parties, a society exhausted by corruption, youth unemployment, distrust toward state services and a new political psychology formed after the Gen Z movement of September 2025. In this context, the Shah-led government introduced a 100-point governance reform agenda at the very beginning. The agenda, made public after the first Cabinet meeting, prioritized administrative restructuring, corruption control, digital service delivery, improvement of citizen services and the effort to free the bureaucracy from political influence. According to The Kathmandu Post, the government\u2019s 100-point governance reform plan included forming a committee to investigate the assets of senior political figures and high-ranking government officials, tying ministries to action plans and performance indicators, and improving services that citizens can directly feel.<\/p>\n

From this perspective, the Balen government\u2019s early signals were not weak. Proposals such as reducing the number of federal ministries, making public services fully digital and time-bound, transforming the postal service into a government courier system to deliver documents such as passports, citizenship certificates and driving licences to citizens\u2019 homes, keeping civil servants away from party membership and political trade-union influence, introducing digital systems in health care, and expanding access for poor citizens were not merely routine administrative slogans. They were policy signals aimed at addressing long-standing structural weaknesses of the Nepali state. Nepal News also described the reduction of federal ministries, creation of an asset investigation committee, full digital service delivery, depoliticization of the bureaucracy and time-bound service delivery as major reform proposals of the government\u2019s agenda.<\/p>\n

But in governance, the real problem usually appears not in announcements, but in implementation. This is the biggest question surrounding the Balen government\u2019s first 100 days. The government announced an extremely ambitious action plan, but its institutional capacity, legal preparation, administrative coordination and time management did not appear mature enough to implement it effectively. According to an early assessment by Nepal News, among the 15 commitments that were to be completed within 15 days, only two had been completed even after 16 days, while the remaining 13 had already missed their deadlines. These included issues such as forming an asset investigation committee, preparing a national anti-corruption action plan, creating an additional probe committee into the Gen Z movement incidents, enabling digital certificate downloads and preparing digital records of encroached public land.<\/p>\n

This raises questions not so much about the government\u2019s intention as about its implementation discipline. Ambition is necessary, but when unrealistic deadlines are set, public trust in the state does not grow; instead, the gap between expectation and disappointment widens. The credibility of a democratic government is not built merely by declaring, \u201cWe will do it.\u201d It is built by publicly answering what has been done, how it was done, who was responsible and why delays occurred. After 100 days, the government urgently needs to classify its 100-point agenda into four categories through a public dashboard: completed tasks, ongoing tasks, delayed tasks and tasks requiring review. Without this, the reform campaign risks being reduced to a political slogan that cannot be measured.<\/p>\n

Some steps taken by the Balen government should be evaluated positively. Bringing the anti-corruption agenda to the centre of power is important in itself. For a long time, Nepali citizens have suffered from opacity in state power, political protection, contracts, land, customs, cooperatives, taxation and administrative appointments. In such a context, the initiative to investigate the assets of people who have held high public office is in line with public sentiment. In April, reports emerged that the government had formed a five-member committee led by a former judge to investigate the assets of current and former political and administrative officials. This can be taken as a concrete signal of the government\u2019s anti-corruption commitment.<\/p>\n

But this is precisely where the government must be most careful. If the anti-corruption campaign is not connected to evidence, law, the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority, courts, Parliament and an independent investigation system, it may enjoy public support but remain institutionally weak. The arrest of powerful individuals may offer immediate public satisfaction, but for long-term good governance, what matters more than arrest is impartial investigation, credibility of evidence, strength of prosecution, independence of the judiciary and final judicial decisions. Otherwise, today\u2019s popular action may tomorrow turn into an allegation of political revenge. To make the anti-corruption campaign sustainable, the asset investigation committee should be kept away from the political shadow of the Prime Minister\u2019s Office and linked to a coordinated, transparent and lawful framework involving the CIAA, Revenue Investigation Department, Department of Money Laundering Investigation, Special Court, Parliament\u2019s good-governance committee, and independent audit and legal experts.<\/p>\n

Another major question raised during the first 100 days concerns the government\u2019s relationship with Parliament and democratic processes. The prime minister\u2019s popularity may be strong, but in a federal democratic republic, executive power is bound by Parliament, the Constitution and the rule of law. If the government appears to bypass Parliament, treat the opposition merely as an obstacle, view the press as a source of inconvenient questions, or portray civic criticism as a defence of the old order, that would not be a healthy sign for a new political culture. Nepali Times has described the Balen government\u2019s first 100 days as a period of divided public opinion, where supporters see the prime minister\u2019s style as bold state leadership while critics describe it as uncertain, overly performative and inclined toward authoritarian tendencies.<\/p>\n

The government should learn from this. Public anger is a source of legitimacy, but it is not greater than the Constitution. Public support is power, but it is not a substitute for Parliament. Social media is an indicator of public opinion, but it is not an institutional mechanism of state governance. Therefore, the prime minister should begin the practice of appearing in Parliament every month to present a progress report on the 100-point action plan. Parliamentary committees should be made more effective in monitoring the executive. A regular national dialogue mechanism with opposition leaders should be established. This will not weaken the government. On the contrary, it will strengthen democratic legitimacy.<\/p>\n

The economy is the biggest and most difficult test for the Balen government. People want not only anti-corruption speeches, but jobs, income, market confidence, production and better service delivery. Nepal currently appears externally strong in some indicators, but internally it rests on a weak structure. The World Bank has projected Nepal\u2019s economic growth for fiscal year 2026 at 2.3 percent, down from 4.6 percent in the previous year. The Middle East conflict, the internal unrest of September 2025, impact on tourism, transport costs and supply-chain risks have been cited as contributing factors. The International Monetary Fund has also noted that Nepal suffered one internal and one external shock in fiscal years 2025 and 2026, delaying investment decisions and pushing growth below potential.<\/p>\n

Data from Nepal Rastra Bank shows that the external sector is relatively strong. By mid-May 2026, total foreign exchange reserves had increased by 38.3 percent to Rs 3.704 trillion, equivalent to US$24.19 billion. But during the same period, the government\u2019s capital expenditure stood at only Rs 113.85 billion, while recurrent expenditure reached Rs 814.66 billion. Capital expenditure had declined by 5.4 percent compared to the same period of the previous year. This clearly indicates that Nepal\u2019s problem is not only a shortage of money. It is also a problem of development-spending capacity, project implementation, public procurement, contract discipline and policy stability.<\/p>\n

Therefore, on the economic front, anti-corruption speeches or slogans of expenditure cuts will not be enough. The Balen government should introduce a three-year national economic recovery plan. It should clearly identify five priorities: production-oriented agriculture, energy and transmission infrastructure, tourism revival, IT and digital service exports, and skills and employment programmes for youth. There should be quarterly policy dialogue with the private sector. A project implementation war room should be formed under the Prime Minister\u2019s Office to improve capital expenditure. Monthly public progress reports should be made mandatory for national projects worth more than Rs 10 billion. A joint task force involving Nepal Rastra Bank, the Ministry of Finance, the private sector and the National Planning Commission should examine why investment is not increasing despite liquidity in the banking system.<\/p>\n

On the diplomatic front, the Balen government is in an even more sensitive position. Nepal is not merely a geographical state located between India and China. It is a strategic space connected to the interests of the United States, Europe, Russia, Japan, the Gulf region, multilateral financial institutions and climate finance. The global balance of power is shifting. U.S.-China competition, India-China mistrust, Russia-West confrontation, Middle East instability, energy markets, supply chains, technology security and climate crisis all affect small states like Nepal, directly or indirectly. Nepal is also entering a sensitive phase of graduation from the category of least developed countries. According to the United Nations LDC Portal, Nepal is scheduled to graduate on November 24, 2026.<\/p>\n

In such a situation, foreign policy cannot be run through emotional reactions on social media. The prime minister\u2019s indication that he would not visit India, China or any other foreign country before completing 100 days and would instead focus first on the domestic agenda can be positive, if it means internal preparation and a clear national agenda. But not travelling abroad is not, by itself, diplomatic maturity. With India, Nepal has issues of borders, energy, trade, transit, employment and security. With China, Nepal has issues of infrastructure, northern border points, trade deficit, technology, connectivity and strategic trust. With the United States, Nepal has development cooperation, democratic governance, security concerns and regional strategy. Nepal must adopt a balanced, self-respecting and practical foreign policy based not on the shadow of any power, but on its own national interest.<\/p>\n

On the question of social justice, the government\u2019s first 100 days appear mixed. The issues of squatters, landless people, street vendors, vulnerable communities and the urban poor are not merely questions of legal encroachment. They are also the result of decades of state failure, poverty, lack of employment, rural displacement and unequal urban development. Protection of public land and management of river corridors are necessary, but before displacement there must be identification, data collection, classification, dialogue, rehabilitation and minimum human security. If the state appears quick to act harshly against weaker citizens but slow or silent toward powerful economic groups, the moral foundation of good governance weakens. The real test of good governance is not whether landless people can be removed. It is whether the state can distinguish between genuinely landless families and land mafias, and provide a just solution.<\/p>\n

Compared with previous governments, the Balen government shows both distinctiveness and weakness. In 2024, the government led by K.P. Sharma Oli claimed that it had completed 185 out of 274 tasks within its first 100 days, or around 70 percent of its commitments. But criticism at the time was that many items on the achievement list were routine administrative works, while the major questions of constitutional amendment, effective Parliament, capital expenditure and public confidence remained weak. Kantipur\u2019s analysis also pointed out shortcomings in constitutional amendment, parliamentary effectiveness, capital spending and trust-building. Compared with that, the distinct feature of the Balen government is that it began with clear deadlines and a language of result-oriented governance. Its weakness is that once deadlines were set, transparent progress reporting, parliamentary ownership and an implementation mechanism should have been equally strong.<\/p>\n

The positive side must be acknowledged fairly. This government has shaken the old political system. It has given the youth a new sense of connection with state power. Anti-corruption has become a central agenda of governance. New debates have begun on digital services, citizen convenience, reduction of ministries, civil service reform, systemic intervention in health and education, women\u2019s representation and administrative efficiency. But this is not enough. Announcing good governance is easy. Implementing it through law, budget, human resources, technology, local governments, provincial governments, courts and Parliament is difficult.<\/p>\n

The way forward for the government is clear. First, an official public dashboard of the 100-point action plan should be launched immediately. Second, every ministry should publish quarterly reports with seven priority areas, timelines, responsible officials, budgets and performance indicators. Third, the prime minister should present an accountability report in Parliament once every month. Fourth, anti-corruption investigations should be made sustainable by linking them with independent judicial, parliamentary and constitutional mechanisms. Fifth, a national policy based on data, classification, rehabilitation and coordination with local governments is needed for the management of squatters and landless people. Sixth, the economy needs a three-year plan centred on employment and production. Seventh, foreign policy requires not emotional nationalist language, but economic interest, security sensitivity and balanced diplomatic preparation.<\/p>\n

The conclusion after 100 days of the Balen government is clear. It has created hope, but has not yet institutionalized trust. It has challenged old politics, but has yet to prove the maturity of new governance. It has given the language of good governance, but has yet to build a lasting structure for good governance. It has captured public attention, but has yet to deliver concrete and broad change in people\u2019s lives.<\/p>\n

Nepal is passing through an extremely sensitive phase. The economy is under pressure. Young people are leaving the country. Society is unequal. Politics is filled with distrust. Global power competition is intensifying. At such a time, the government\u2019s first 100 days should not be turned merely into a celebration, nor should they be declared a total failure. But it must be said firmly and fairly: popularity is not governance, mandate is not result, and announcement is not reform. Only if popularity is transformed into institutions, mandate into accountability, and announcements into results can the Balen government become a new chapter in history.<\/p>\n

The time ahead is not for slogans, but for results. It is not for impulse, but for institutional maturity. It is not for social media, but for Parliament and the Constitution. If Balendra Shah can transform himself from a symbol of public anger into a responsible state leader, Nepal may gain a new political possibility. But if the language of reform turns into procedural weakness, popularity into institutional imbalance, and nationalism into diplomatic immaturity, this historic opportunity may also become another national disappointment.<\/p>\n

The mandate is large, but the Constitution is larger. Popularity is strong, but institutions must be stronger. Change is necessary, but not by bypassing due process. National interest is supreme, but not without mature diplomacy. This is the message the government must receive after 100 days. The people have given it an opportunity. Now the government must provide proof.<\/p>\n

About the Author: Prem Sagar Poudel is a senior journalist and international relations analyst from Nepal. He has conducted in-depth studies on Nepal-China relations, the geopolitics of the Himalayan region, and Asian security issues.<\/em><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t <\/div><\/div>\n\t\t