The expectation following the March elections was that the entry of a new generation of lawmakers into the national parliament would fundamentally alter the trajectory of Nepal’s governance. Arriving on the heels of intense public frustration and the Gen-Z movement against systemic corruption, the newly elected parliamentarians were expected to prioritize robust lawmaking, scrutinize executive actions with rigor, and serve as authentic representatives of public concerns.
Like in other areas, it was expected that Nepal’s parliament would reform itself, correcting the past image of a parliament characterized by partisan interests, horse-trading, failure to formulate laws, and low attendance of lawmakers. However, a close evaluation of the first five months reveals significant operational frictions, behavioral oversteps, structural inefficiencies, and a persistence of legacy habits that undermine the institution’s democratic role.
The fundamental departure from democratic norms begins with lawmakers overstepping their constitutional boundaries into executive jurisdiction. Members of Parliament have increasingly adopted an executive mindset, visiting administrative centers and constitutional bodies to issue direct administrative orders. In certain instances, lawmakers have pressured state apparatuses and regional anti-corruption offices, demanding access to confidential complaints filed by citizens.
By attempting to command the administrative machinery, lawmakers bypass statutory procedures, compromising the institutional independence of public bodies and confusing their primary legislative mandate with executive control. This overreach has frequently manifested through public displays of hostility and an authoritarian posture towards municipal and civil authorities.
A notable instance occurred during a waste management coordination meeting, where a lawmaker assumed an authoritative posture over senior mayors and deputy mayors, issuing demands in an unprofessional manner. The incident escalated to a point where Information and Communication Minister Bikram Timalsina had to publicly intervene and issue an apology.
Such encounters demonstrate a troubling trend where young lawmakers confuse democratic authority with unchecked executive command, damaging inter-governmental coordination and weakening parliamentary decorum. In some cases, lawmakers act like subordinates of the executive instead of making the government accountable to Parliament. A few weeks ago, another lawmaker drew criticism for taking the lead in destroying the wall of an army barrack, which was beyond his jurisdiction, prompting the Army Chief to meet PM Shah to flag the issue.
The conduct of lawmakers within Parliament is also problematic, as they often bypass parliamentary decorum. Over the past few months, the Speaker has repeatedly cautioned lawmakers to maintain parliamentary decorum. As a result, Parliament is wasting its precious time on trivial issues. In some cases, lawmakers are attacking the Speaker and crossing the red lines.
Despite the legislative backlog of dozens of pending bills that require urgent deliberation, the legislative output of the new parliament remains severely constrained. The ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) holds a substantial mandate following the election, which theoretically provides the voting strength to pass delayed legislation efficiently.
However, Parliament has failed to translate its numerical advantage into legislative momentum. Critical bills concerning economic reform, public sector accountability, and social sector regulation remain stagnant, indicating that electoral dominance has not automatically yielded functional efficiency within the House. Instead of focusing on the lawmaking process, lawmakers often defend the government’s move to introduce ordinances, arguing that, as the government needs to conduct some work, it needs to introduce ordinances. Some lawmakers often argue that it is the government’s constitutional right to issue ordinances.
The persistence of absenteeism further highlights the gap between public expectations and parliamentary performance. A recurring pattern has re-emerged where lawmakers register their attendance solely to secure meeting allowances before leaving the floor. This lack of quorum has repeatedly forced the Speaker to adjourn scheduled meetings, directly echoing the obstructive practices of past assemblies. The failure of members to maintain consistent physical presence on the floor demonstrates an ongoing disconnect from their basic obligation to participate in full legislative debates.
For instance, on August 11, the Speaker adjourned the meeting due to a lack of quorum. As 69 lawmakers constitute a quorum, there were only 61 lawmakers in the House. That is why the RSP has formed a committee to examine the attendance of its lawmakers. The party has analyzed that, though lawmakers are participating in the initial hours of the meeting, they gradually leave the meeting.
Amid growing complaints about the conduct and decorum of lawmakers, RSP Chairman Rabi Lamichhane, in a meeting with lawmakers, urged them to maintain proper conduct, not to engage in undignified activities, and not to make a spectacle. He told them to attend the House regularly and maintain proper conduct.
It is not only ruling party lawmakers; even opposition lawmakers are defying the Speaker, violating the decorum of Parliament, and undermining the Speaker. The relationship between the executive branch and the legislature has been further strained by executive avoidance of parliamentary oversight. Prime Minister Balendra Shah has consistently avoided participating in parliamentary debates, asserting that executive attention should remain focused on national projects rather than ritual legislative discussions. This stance, alongside the reluctance of government ministers to address queries on the House floor, undermines the core democratic principle of executive accountability to the elected assembly. The opposition’s persistent demands regarding foreign policy statements—such as Prime Minister Shah’s comments on border encroachment—remain unanswered, creating prolonged friction and stalling constructive dialogue.
Parliamentary committees, historically intended to operate as “mini-parliaments” for detailed scrutiny, have similarly struggled to fulfill their specialized function. Rather than engaging in evidence-based policy analysis, these committees have frequently descended into partisan confrontations aimed at undermining civil servants and government personnel. Decisions continue to be driven by real-time media coverage rather than methodical investigation, preventing committees from serving as effective spaces for bipartisan policy formulation. Parliamentary committees are issuing many impractical directives, making it difficult for the government to implement them.
Compounding this problem is an emerging trend towards opacity within critical committee proceedings. The Committee on International Relations and Tourism, for example, has restricted media access to its sessions, shielding discussions on strategic foreign policy matters from public view. Given Nepal’s delicate geopolitical position between India and China, blocking journalists from committee hearings deprives the public of transparency regarding critical national security and foreign relations debates, directly contradicting the transparency promises of the new mandate. The committee is functioning in a way that supports the government instead of ensuring robust discussions.
The Speaker of the House of Representatives has faced growing scrutiny regarding the impartial management of parliamentary business. Critics argue that the Speaker’s rulings have favored the ruling party by delaying mandatory appearances of the Prime Minister and Cabinet ministers to address urgent public inquiries. Although a formal ruling was eventually issued requiring Prime Minister Shah to present himself before the House, the long delay in enforcing executive attendance has raised concerns about the independence of the Speaker’s office. Just a week ago, Speaker Aryal ruled that the PM must attend Parliament and respond to lawmakers’ concerns.
Substantive legislative debate has also been diluted by a lack of rigorous policy preparation among newly elected members. Despite political parties conducting internal orientation programs for their lawmakers, many MPs continue to present floor arguments without a foundational grasp of complex policy issues. This reliance on superficial talking points—including instances of members delivering speeches generated by artificial intelligence without adequate verification—highlights a shortfall in the independent analytical capability required for complex legislative work.
The technical capacity of lawmakers to scrutinize legislation presents a structural vulnerability to the lawmaking process. Over three dozen bills awaiting action across the House of Representatives and the National Assembly require thorough examination to identify regulatory loopholes and drafting flaws. Past legislative efforts in Nepal have frequently suffered from structural errors due to hasty approvals. Without dedicated, independent legal evaluation by lawmakers, the current Parliament risks passing flawed legislation that creates future implementation disputes. There are several such examples in the past.
The current Parliament’s primary mandate was established by the Gen-Z anti-corruption movement, which demanded transparent governance and an end to public sector corruption. However, converting these anti-corruption demands into formal legal frameworks requires systematic legislative work rather than political rhetoric. If the assembly fails to enact binding anti-corruption statutes, enhanced oversight mechanisms, and public sector transparency protocols, it risks repeating the failures of previous governments whose governance commitments remained confined to public speeches.
Finally, Parliament must improve its monitoring of how passed laws are executed by government agencies. Creating laws without monitoring their implementation leads to administrative inertia. By strengthening parliamentary oversight mechanisms, requiring regular ministerial progress reports, and eliminating performative debate tactics—such as prolonged deliberations over nominal budget reduction motions—the assembly can shift its focus towards measurable policy outcomes.
If the current Parliament is to fulfill its mandate, its members must transition from performative politics to disciplined legislative work. By respecting constitutional boundaries, maintaining consistent attendance, ensuring committee transparency, and conducting rigorous policy reviews, the young generation of lawmakers can establish an accountable, effective legislative body that responds directly to the aspirations of the electorate.
