Is House obstruction a legitimate parliamentary tool or distorted culture?

KATHMANDU, May 22: In Nepal’s parliamentary history, “parliamentary obstruction” has become a recurring feature — one that political parties interpret according to their own convenience and political needs.

Opposition parties have been obstructing House proceedings, demanding the presence of Prime Minister Balendra Shah in Parliament. Continuous slogan chanting, surrounding of the well, and repeated adjournments have once again revived a familiar question: is parliamentary obstruction a legitimate weapon of the opposition, or has it evolved into a distorted parliamentary culture?

On Thursday, opposition parties surrounded the well of the House of Representatives. Yet amid the disruption, bills continued to be passed. Rule 56 of the House of Representatives Regulations, 2023 clearly states that the Prime Minister must directly answer questions from lawmakers during the first week of every month. Citing the government’s failure to implement this provision, lawmakers from the CPN-UML, Nepali Communist Party (NCP), and Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) chanted slogans and surrounded the well during the meeting. Lawmakers from the main opposition Nepali Congress stood from their seats in support of the protest, while lawmakers from the Shram Sanskriti Party walked out in protest.

As protests escalated inside the chamber, Speaker Dol Prasad Aryal left for the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers to meet Prime Minister Shah. However, after Shah indicated that he would attend Parliament but not immediately, the Speaker proceeded with the House agenda despite opposition resistance.

Amid continued sloganeering and the surrounding of the well, Speaker Aryal pushed forward with legislative business and announced the passage — by majority vote — of the House of Representatives Member Election (First Amendment) Bill, the Voter List (First Amendment) Bill, and the National Forensic Science Laboratory (Establishment and Operation) Bill. Minister for Finance Dr Swarnim Wagle then tabled the proposal to pass the Alternative Development Finance Mobilization Bill, which was also endorsed by the ruling majority. Although initially scheduled to be sent to a committee, the bill was passed directly from the House.

In principle, democratic norms favor consensus-building in Parliament. However, constitutional and procedural pressures — such as passing the budget, preventing ordinances from expiring, or ensuring uninterrupted government business — have led to a practice in Nepal where Speakers proceed with legislative decisions even amid protest, often deploying marshals to continue proceedings.

While parliamentary obstruction is seen as a tool for the opposition to express dissent, its repeated and excessive use raises concerns that it is drifting into a disruptive political culture. Parliament is widely understood not as a venue for obstruction but as a forum for debate, accountability, and lawmaking.

In a parliamentary democracy, the opposition — as the minority — has limited instruments to raise public concerns and hold the government accountable. When the ruling side sidelines opposition voices or avoids debate on key national issues, obstruction often becomes the opposition’s last resort.

Past instances reflect this pattern. Whether during the obstruction linked to Dr Govinda KC’s hunger strike and demands for medical education reform in 2018 or more recent disruptions seeking accountability from the Prime Minister, opposition parties have consistently used obstruction as a pressure tactic. Party leaders argue that paralyzing Parliament serves as a symbolic protest against perceived government overreach.

However, while politically framed as a weapon, parliamentary obstruction is widely viewed as inconsistent with constitutional and procedural norms. The House regulations provide clear mechanisms for protest — including points of order, formal objections, and interventions during zero hour or special sessions. Officials at the Parliament Secretariat note that no provision in the rules envisages blocking or halting the House’s functioning.

Former Speaker Subash Nembang often remarked that the Constitution and parliamentary rules do not recognize obstruction as a legitimate procedure. According to him, if parties choose to obstruct proceedings politically, the responsibility lies with them to justify it before the public.

In recent years, parliamentary obstruction has increasingly become part of Nepal’s political culture — a trend many see as unhealthy for democratic practice. From minor political disputes and intra-party conflicts to demands for ministerial resignations, the House has repeatedly been stalled for extended periods, raising questions about the effectiveness of parliamentary functioning itself.