KATHMANDU, May 19: Prime Minister Balendra Shah has so far avoided addressing parliamentary sessions, let alone responding to opposition lawmakers. This has drawn significant criticism, yet he has remained largely unbothered. He even walked out of the inaugural session of the budget session while the President was reading out the government’s policies and programmes. His continued absence has given rise to widespread speculation.
PM Shah came to power riding on a wave of public resentment toward the old political class. He did not rise through party structures but emerged from public frustration and digital outrage. The nature of his rise created strong expectations. Many believe that a 36-year-old leader like him would confront the system and dismantle it, not operate around it.
However, Shah’s repeated absence from the House of Representatives appears increasingly unusual. During parliamentary sessions, opposition lawmakers frequently question his absence and reluctance to address the House. Such questions have accumulated, but the Prime Minister has remained absent, delegating responses to his ministers. Finance Minister Swarnim Wagle, among others, has had to respond to opposition queries on his behalf. Constitutionally, there is no objection to a Prime Minister delegating responses to ministers. However, the practice has been widely viewed as weakening the Prime Minister’s public image.
A Prime Minister’s presence and address in the House of Representatives is a key form of accountability. Parliament is a space where executive power is tested in real time before elected representatives who are not expected to be deferential to those in authority.
Long-distance public transport resumes operation from Saturday
Ironically, Shah holds a strong parliamentary position and considerable political backing. In theory, this should be the most favorable moment for him to lead debates in the House. The numbers are on his side, and Parliament should be an advantage rather than a risk. Yet, he appears to treat it as an inconvenience.
This creates a contradiction. The same leader who challenged entrenched elites now appears reluctant to face them in Parliament and defend his positions. Opposition parties have seized on this gap to criticize both him and his party, the RSP.
The opposition’s argument carries weight. A Prime Minister who avoids Parliament weakens the very institution that legitimizes executive authority. In a parliamentary system, authority does not stem solely from popularity but from continuous scrutiny. A Prime Minister must defend decisions not only through public addresses but also through sustained engagement in the House.
Meanwhile, his supporters interpret this approach as a pragmatic way of avoiding procedural inefficiency. They argue that parliamentary formalities are time-consuming and distract from governance. However, parliamentary democracy is designed precisely to slow down power, ensuring leaders are regularly confronted with scrutiny and counterarguments in a structured environment. This process prevents unchecked decision-making and discourages authoritarian tendencies.
There is also a deeper institutional risk. Avoiding Parliament weakens both opposition oversight and internal executive discipline. Ministers such as Wagle and Shishir Khanal, among others, may begin to assume roles and visibility that should properly rest with the head of government, Balen Shah.
The political narrative surrounding Shah adds another layer of complexity. Since coming to power, he has symbolised discontinuity (krambhangata) and resistance to traditional politics. However, the same public that elevated him for breaking from the old political order is now closely watching for signs of avoidance rather than engagement.
For his supporters who view him as an honest and reformist leader, his presence and participation in Parliament are becoming a test of credibility. Parliament does not demand theatrics but requires presence, accountability, and engagement. He is expected to appear, answer questions, accept criticism, and respond when necessary—these are the minimum expectations of parliamentary leadership.
Yet Shah’s current posture suggests a preference for distance from confrontation. This is precisely the moment when his party and supporters must be reminded that while avoidance may protect image in the short term, it weakens authority in the long run. A Prime Minister is not meant to speak only when it is comfortable; the role exists primarily for the uncomfortable moments inside the House.
