After the 2082 Falgun 21 House of Representatives elections held under unusual circumstances, the government decisions of the two-thirds majority of the National Independent Party also do not seem normal – be it the selective implementation of the recommendations of the controversial Karki Commission or the decision to form a temporary judicial commission to investigate the assets of leaders and office bearers. It is difficult to say that these decisions are not inspired by visible changes and punitive actions. Similarly, decisions such as restrictions on professional organizations, examination-free primary education, and control in border areas.  

Why is this government making decisions at the speed of a bullet train instead of making decisions through extensive discussions, deliberations, methods, and processes in a democracy?  

Why is the Balendra government making decisions at the speed of a bullet train instead of making decisions through extensive discussion, deliberation, methods and procedures in a democracy? The High-Level Inquiry Commission on the Suppression of the Gen-G Movement was formed under the chairmanship of former Justice Gauri Bahadur Karki. The commission had recommended criminal cases against the then Prime Minister KP Oli, Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak and some officials of the security administration. However, the first cabinet of the Balendra Shah government made a selective decision to ‘implement only a few’ of the recommendations. The then Home Minister Sudhan Gurung went to the police headquarters on the night the government was formed and he was appointed as a minister, arranged for the arrest of Oli-Lekhak and issued an arrest warrant. Accordingly, the leaders were arrested in the morning for police questioning. It is necessary to understand the government’s selective decision and impulsive style. The Supreme Court’s order against Oli-Lekhak gives solid grounds to doubt how demonstration-oriented and punitive that arrest was.

Similarly, the executive decision to form a high-level judicial investigation commission on the assets of former ministers and prime ministers does not seem to be aimed at institutional reform. Rather, it would not be an exaggeration to say that the government has neglected the institutions. Otherwise, the government would have focused on how to make the autonomous institution (the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority), which is going through various legal, administrative and resource-related problems, more effective. A sustainable strategy and permanent legal and institutional reforms are needed to control deep-rooted corruption. However, the government's priority is a temporary and temporary commission. The result of a purely political undertaking without a clear legal framework, process and responsibilities is clear from the example of the controversial recommendations of the Karki Commission.

Furthermore, without extensive debate, it can be understood that the decision to ban various labor, professional and student organizations was guided by political control rather than institutional reform. In-depth discussion and broad discussion on issues such as fundamental rights provided for in the constitution, labor rights, social justice and the state's commitment to the International Labor Organization are indispensable. In particular, the existing distorted practices of trade unions require institutional and policy reforms.

The decision to completely abolish primary level examinations also seems student-friendly. However, it risks weakening learning measurement, accountability and quality assurance. Without the necessary infrastructure, teacher capacity and continuous reliable evaluation system in place, this step can create a policy vacuum.

The government's decision to impose customs duty on goods worth more than Rs. 100 from across the southern border region is irritating the Madhesi people who are chanting slogans like 'Quipchap Ghanti Chaap' and 'Abki Bar Balen Sarkar'. This decision is not only regressive, but it will also soon be politically counterproductive. How reasonable is the ratio of revenue generated from importing such retail shopping items to the administrative costs it may add? Can't excessive control lead to problems like illegal practices, smuggling and lax compliance? Border farmers who procure cheap agricultural fertilizers from abroad have no connection with the target of an unachievable economic growth rate of seven percent per year in the current global scenario. It is not unusual for a Prime Minister who grew up in Kathmandu to be unable to understand the family, social interactions, and economic daily lives of the Madhesi people across the border.

Looking at the experiences of various countries, populist politics has gained electoral legitimacy by challenging the established political elite and appealing against the system. After gaining electoral legitimacy, the style and work culture of those parties and leaders have three characteristics, as discussed above – punitive popularity, neglect of institutions, and selective implementation.

The government’s decision to impose customs duty on goods worth more than Rs. 100 from across the southern border region is irritating the Madhesis who are chanting ‘silent bell ringing’ and ‘abki bar balen sarkar’ slogans. This decision is not only regressive, but may also be politically counterproductive. In this context, a famous article by Dutch-born political scientist Kass Mude in 2004 is interesting. The article says that populist leaders are ‘moralistic actors’. His argument is that populist leaders are not anti-establishment or anti-system, but rather they are miraculous in polarizing the entire society into good and moral people and corrupt elites. Such leaders try to establish themselves and their parties as the sole representatives of ‘unity, not plurality’ and ‘moral integration’ in society.   

The characters called ‘farak’ who have alienated the supporters of the so-called old parties as ‘jhole’ are creating a new political consciousness of the same ‘integrationist morality’ of the algorithmic culture. If Prime Minister Balendra Shah follows the same style of work as when he was the mayor of Kathmandu, he will be anti-system, have little faith in procedures, villainize opposition politics in the eyes of the people, and be a protest-oriented work style. He left no stone unturned to create a rebel figure who could protect public property and take direct action by using bulldozers to excavate private buildings, commercial premises, or the Tukucha Khola.

In fact, the copyright for introducing such a populist culture into Nepali politics should be given to former Prime Minister KP Oli. Oli, who discovered everything from a ship with a Nepali flag to Ram in a Thori, also created an era-changing nationalist image. There were many villains in his nationalism. Many believed in his unifying nationalism. Oli was not a pluralist when it came to people's aspirations, but believed in uniformity. And, he was also consistently approved by the people in elections. However, this is not always sustainable. Balen defeated Oli by 50,000 votes, and his dedicated supporters, who had been chanting slogans like 'K. P. Ba I love you', were certainly there. Therefore, in a democracy, impulsive and populist decisions do not achieve lasting popularity. Whether those decisions were aimed at broad public participation, intensive discussion, tolerance for alternative views, and strengthening of public institutions is a matter of determination.