How Nepals Millennial Pm Balen Shah Is Empowered

Two months into his tenure as Prime Minister of Nepal, Balen Shah continues to dominate the conversation, with elements of both hope and fear, and an undeciphered silence as for his actions. His leaving parliament midway through the president's address unveili... Two months into his tenure as Prime Minister of Nepal, Balen Shah continues to dominate the conversation, with elements of both hope and fear, and an undeciphered silence as for his actions. His leaving parliament midway through the president's address unveiling the new government's policies and programmes last month, and his continued absence from the House, are new features in Nepal's politics. Why is the leader with a nearly unprecedented majority doing this? Why the disrespect for the House that elected him? Also Read | Dear Editor, I Disagree | New Nepal government’s action against corrupt leaders is part of its mandate Some context might be enlightening. Since 2006, when the House of Representatives was dissolved and then revived under the weight of a political movement, successive legislatures chose to take decisions that flew in the face of constitutional norms and traditions. This, perhaps, set the precedent for a lack of norms and propriety. The Constituent Assembly, elected to draft the new constitution within two years, first met at midnight on May 28, 2008, and set the tone with a disturbing aberration. The CA, which also acted as the parliament, conducted its business after a series of postponements. Krishna Prasad Sitaula entered a packed House and occupied a seat in the ministerial row: The new government was yet to be formed. Sitaula, a leader of the Nepali Congress , was the Home Minister but lost the election, and subsequently, the right to participate in the business of the House, under the rules. He moved a one-line resolution seeking the abolition of the monarchy, and a 238-year-old institutional history ended without a debate. The CA was under a directive by the revived House of Representatives that “it shall abolish the Monarchy by its first meeting”, and it did so hurriedly before midnight. G P Koirala of the Nepali Congress continued as PM for the next three months without any constitutional validity, letting Maoist leader Prachanda, the leader of the largest party, form the government only in mid-August. There was an understanding between major political parties, and there was little check from the judiciary: Fear or loyalty seemed to have been internalised by major institutions – all in the name of delivering the constitution on time. It was finally promulgated in September 2015, and the record shows that none of the 308 articles was discussed in the full House, nor was a single amendment allowed to any of the clauses. This rot and decay in the parliamentary system has now become Balen Shah's biggest strength. The “fast track” that marked the constitution-making process seems to have broken. And it is far from clear if and how it can be repaired. Should it be overhauled, rewritten or replaced altogether? Asim Shah, political