{"id":23711,"date":"2026-08-24T15:44:00","date_gmt":"2026-08-24T09:59:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/eng.dragonmedia.com.np\/?p=23711"},"modified":"2026-08-24T15:44:00","modified_gmt":"2026-08-24T09:59:00","slug":"beyond-muktinath-balens-mustang-visit-army-headquarters-and-nepals-changing-power-structure","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/eng.dragonmedia.com.np\/?p=23711","title":{"rendered":"Beyond Muktinath: Balen\u2019s Mustang Visit, Army Headquarters and Nepal\u2019s Changing Power Structure<\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Sanket Kiranti<\/strong><\/p>\n

From the outside, Prime Minister Balendra Shah\u2019s visit to Mustang appeared to be an ordinary private and family trip. He travelled by road to Mustang, visited Muktinath and returned to Kathmandu. The image of the Prime Minister driving himself through difficult mountain roads also reflected his familiar political style: appearing distinct from formal protocol, placing emphasis on direct experience and presenting himself differently from Nepal\u2019s traditional political leadership.<\/p>\n

But in politics, the meaning of a journey is not determined by its destination alone. The way it is managed, the security arrangements surrounding it, the flow of information and even its timing can carry political significance. Seen from this perspective, Balen\u2019s Mustang visit offers a useful window into Nepal\u2019s evolving power structure and his emerging style of governance.<\/p>\n

One exaggeration must first be removed from the discussion. There is no publicly available evidence that the Prime Minister secured the Nepal Army\u2019s \u201cunconditional political support\u201d during the visit, or that the Chief of Army Staff provided him with any political guarantee to preserve his government. The Nepal Army is a constitutional institution, not a political force empowered to create or remove governments. The Prime Minister himself holds the defence portfolio and serves as chairman of the National Security Council. Close working contact between the Prime Minister and the military leadership is therefore natural and constitutionally legitimate.<\/p>\n

The more important political question begins after that point.<\/p>\n

Balen\u2019s governing style increasingly appears to place greater emphasis on direct coordination with permanent state institutions than on traditional party-based mediation. He has not adopted the conventional style of maintaining constant and highly visible dialogue with the leaders of established political parties. His approach to government appears more oriented toward administrative mechanisms, security institutions and direct implementation than toward party meetings, power-sharing arrangements and traditional political bargaining. It can therefore be understood as a model in which the role of party politics is relatively limited while executive authority is comparatively stronger.<\/p>\n

The Mustang visit symbolically highlighted this tendency. Although it was described as a private trip, a prime minister does not cease to be the country\u2019s chief executive simply because a journey is personal. The involvement of the Nepal Army in providing security in a sensitive area is not unusual. The politically relevant question is whether Balen is increasingly seeking governmental stability and operational capacity through direct relationships with permanent state institutions rather than through traditional party negotiations.<\/p>\n

If such a tendency is developing, it would still be incorrect to describe it immediately as a \u201cmilitary-backed government.\u201d It may instead indicate a form of civilian government seeking to reduce dependence on partisan bargaining and rely more heavily on administrative capability, security structures and the institutional efficiency of the state. In political science, however, such a tendency can also move toward the personalization of executive power, where the Prime Minister\u2019s Office, bureaucracy, security apparatus and a limited decision-making circle become more influential than political party structures.<\/p>\n

Mustang itself is not an ordinary geographical space. Nepal\u2019s northern frontier there intersects religion, trade, border security, Tibetan history, Chinese security sensitivities and the legacy of Cold War-era American activity. During the 1960s and 1970s, Mustang became an important base for the Tibetan Khampa resistance. The historical role of the US Central Intelligence Agency in assisting Tibetan resistance forces has long been publicly documented. In 1974, Nepal eventually dismantled Khampa activities in accordance with its policy of preventing its territory from being used for armed operations against China.<\/p>\n

That episode helped establish a long-term Nepali security principle: the country\u2019s territory should not be used for strategic activities directed against a neighbouring state. Mustang today is not the Mustang of 1974, but its strategic importance has not disappeared. With Xizang to the north, the Korala border point, expanding road and trade connectivity with China and growing international attention on Himalayan geography, Mustang remains a sensitive border region.<\/p>\n

The Army\u2019s role in securing a prime minister travelling through such an area is therefore not abnormal. What matters is the broader governance signal that may emerge from it. If Balen is developing a style that restricts information on sensitive matters, relies on a small decision-making circle and maintains direct contact with permanent state institutions, Nepal could be witnessing the emergence of an executive model different from the country\u2019s traditionally coalition-driven system.<\/p>\n

The attraction of such a model is understandable. For years, Nepal\u2019s multiparty governments have frequently been constrained by coalition bargaining, distribution of positions, factional competition within parties and constant struggles over power. By comparison, the Nepal Army is a disciplined institution with a centralized command structure and long-term institutional memory. Its role has extended from natural disasters to strategic roads, bridges and other development projects. When traditional politics appears unstable, the institutional capacity of such an organization can naturally appeal to a strong executive leadership.<\/p>\n

But this is precisely where constitutional caution becomes necessary. In a democracy, the military is not the political partner of a government. It is a professional national institution operating under civilian authority. An elected leadership can and should cooperate closely with the military, but that relationship must remain institutional rather than personal. Trust between the Prime Minister and the Chief of Army Staff can be beneficial to national security, but it must function within the framework of the Constitution, the Council of Ministers, the National Security Council, Parliament and legal accountability.<\/p>\n

If any prime minister were to weaken political parties, Parliament or the civilian administration and begin relying on a personal relationship with security institutions as the foundation of political survival, that would pose risks to democratic balance. There is currently insufficient basis to draw such a conclusion about the Balen government. For that reason, relations between the Prime Minister and the Army should be understood not as \u201cmilitary backing\u201d but as institutional cooperation operating under constitutional civilian control.<\/p>\n

Another dimension of this equation is the political distance between Balen and Rastriya Swatantra Party Chairman Rabi Lamichhane. At one stage, both could be viewed as representatives of a similar wave of public dissatisfaction with Nepal\u2019s established political parties. Once in positions of power, however, their political requirements can naturally diverge. For a party chairman, organization, cadres, future elections and party expansion are central concerns. For a prime minister, state administration, security, the economy and international relations become immediate priorities.<\/p>\n

For this reason, even leaders emerging from the same broader demand for political change can gradually find themselves divided between party power and executive power. If Balen\u2019s authority increasingly rests on the premiership, public support, parliamentary backing and effective coordination with state institutions, weakening him may require more than simply altering internal party equations. But this does not mean the Nepal Army is keeping him in office. In a democratic system, the real power of a prime minister derives from a combination of parliamentary numbers, constitutional legitimacy, public confidence, governmental performance and institutional credibility.<\/p>\n

The military is not a democratic mechanism for making any prime minister politically \u201cinvincible.\u201d However, a prime minister who maintains effective relations with capable state institutions, retains sufficient parliamentary support and preserves legitimacy among the public can certainly become more difficult to dislodge through routine factional political manoeuvring.<\/p>\n

This may be the most important political meaning of the Mustang visit.<\/p>\n

There is no evidence that Balen returned from beyond the Himalayas with a secret military understanding. But the journey did reveal signs of an evolving governing style: less public political negotiation, restricted information flows, more direct executive control, smoother coordination with security institutions and an attempt to reduce the mediation of conventional party politics.<\/p>\n

If this model succeeds, the Office of the Prime Minister could re-emerge in Nepal as a powerful and results-oriented executive institution. If it fails, it could politically isolate the government, weaken institutional balance and lead to excessive personalization of executive authority.<\/p>\n

The central question, therefore, is not simply whether the Army supports Balen.<\/p>\n

The larger question is: what kind of governing structure is Balen attempting to build in Nepal?<\/p>\n

A government controlled by political parties, a government excessively concentrated around the prime minister, or a government in which permanent state institutions work together under the Constitution to produce results?<\/p>\n

The Mustang visit did not provide a complete answer. But it did offer a signal. Balen\u2019s political experiment is no longer limited to presenting an alternative to the old parties. The way he defines his executive relationship with Nepal\u2019s permanent state institutions will become one of the most important tests of his government.<\/p>\n

His relationship with the Nepal Army will certainly be significant in that process. But for democratic Nepal, the healthiest and strongest arrangement will remain one in which the Army is not the political power of the Prime Minister, but the power of the state operating under the Constitution.<\/p>\n

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