New rulers, old habits | Nepal's selective accountability and democratic drift

Banning unions and weaponising law risks dragging Nepal back toward authoritarian echoes.

The infant government of rapper-turned politician Balendra Shah in Nepal is being severely tested by the very issue of corruption in high places that catapulted it to power.

Shah’s home minister, Sudhan Gurung, resigned on April 22 amid controversy over the sources of his investment in the share market and his links to a shady businessman currently in custody for money laundering. Gurung was an important orchestrator in Nepal’s Gen-Z protests that led to the overthrow of the K P Oli government.

Gurung’s exit is both a political and personal embarrassment for the prime minister. Apparently, Shah overrode the objections of the Rashtriya Swatantra Party (RSP) chief Rabi Lamichhane during discussions on Cabinet formation to personally appoint Gurung.

This is the second resignation in a row from Shah’s Cabinet. The first one to go was Labour Minister Deepak Kumar Sah. He was dismissed on April 9 from the government for breach of party conduct and discipline — specifically, for appointing his wife to the Health Insurance Board. Ironically, a government that rose to power on the promise of breaking away from corruption-ridden traditional parties is facing a credibility crisis on the same issue.

What makes the optics worse is that on the evening of April 22, the Speaker of Nepal’s Parliament accepted the controversial House of Representatives (HoR) Rules 2026. They have a provision that MPs accused of corruption or money laundering will not be suspended from Parliament unless they are in judicial custody in cases carrying a sentence of three years or more and involving moral turpitude.

The most obvious and primary beneficiary of this rule is Lamichhane. Although he was allowed to be sworn in as an MP in the Parliament, he had been suspended in the outgoing House under Section 27 of the Money Laundering (Prevention) Act for being involved in a co-operative fraud case, which was sub-judice. The new House rule, in direct contradiction of the existing law, allows him to participate in parliamentary proceedings and even join the government, if he so chooses.

The move sends the opposite signal from the government’s 100-point anti-corruption agenda under which Oli was arrested. It was in pursuit of this agenda that the Shah government ordered a retrospective trawling of the finances of all former prime ministers and virtually every significant public official who held office since multi-party democracy began in 1990.

The targeting of persons for merely holding public office and without any specific evidence of wrongdoing was justified as a crusade against corruption in public life. Thus, within two months of being in power, the Shah government had put in place two diametrically opposed accountability frameworks — one for sitting MPs and another for former prime ministers, ministers, and bureaucrats.

The fishing expedition against political opponents in previous regimes is sweeping and broad. By contrast, the protection of current officeholders and allies is narrow and legalistic — requiring the high bar of judicial remand before they can be debarred. Such selective and instrumental use of the State’s accountability machinery is no different from practices in Nepal’s old establishment.

Regardless of whether the accused is a political rival like Oli or one’s own party president like Lamichhane, the rule of law requires legal standards to be applied consistently — the same threshold of evidence, same burden of proof, and same protections when being investigated.

Controversially, the Shah government has also banned party-affiliated student unions and trade unions in hospitals, universities, and public services. The government has removed all party-affiliated student unions from campuses, to be replaced by ‘Student Councils’ within 90-days. With police allowed to enter campuses to shut down student union offices, there are nationwide protests by students against the move.

The new government feels that educational institutions should not become political battlegrounds, and that politically-affiliated student unions cause strikes and disruptions. This sits well with its middle-class base, which views student union activism as causing perpetual disruption of the academic schedule. But selectively banning student unions is against the Constitution of Nepal, which guarantees freedom of association and freedom to engage in political activities.

If the Shah government has to find solutions to student unrest, they will have to be constitutional, proportionate, and implementable. Could Shah have so easily forgotten the crucial role of students in the success of the Gen-Z agitation?

As for banning trade unions in the public sector, the right to organise and form unions is explicitly specified in Nepal’s Constitution. The ban is also a breach of Nepal’s ILO obligations, and a rollback of the gains of decades of collective bargaining. The ban may impact Nepal’s preferential trade agreements with countries or trading blocs like the European Union that require strict adherence to ILO labour standards.

The RSP’s actions seem like leaves taken out of the undemocratic playbook of Nepal’s erstwhile monarchy. The Panchayat System (1960-1980) under King Mahendra disallowed the existence of political parties and student bodies affiliated to parties, while the trade union rights of civil servants were suspended by King Gyanendra in 2005.

Surely the RSP ought to be working towards increasing its institutional depth by propagating its ideas through student unions, trade unions, and civil society organisations. They will provide the talent and can become the future pipelines of new leadership, if the party is to survive beyond its present charismatic leaders.

The RSP’s unprecedented electoral dominance has created the conditions for an authoritarian drift, even if Shah and Lamichhane are not closet authoritarians. The Opposition, reduced to a rump and its legacy discredited, does not have the moral energy to function as an effective check on the Executive.

Attacking civil society organisations embedded in institutions, weaponising accountability selectively, arresting a predecessor without specific charges within 24-hours of assuming power, and centralising power in the prime minister’s office (Shah is now the home minister as well) can all lead to democratic backsliding.

The RSP must recognise that Nepal does not need a technocratic vision of efficiency and depoliticised governance. It needs a system that reconciles political interests mediated through legitimate institutions. Student unions, trade unions, civil society organisations, and political parties are the flesh and bones of the democratic body politic.

Nepal should learn from the developments of the last decade in India — a better democracy cannot be built by weakening political organisations and dismantling the very institutional infrastructure which ensures accountability from those in power.

Bharat Bhushan is a Delhi-based journalist.

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.