Those in power often have the illusion that their desires are legitimate. This illusion is especially prevalent among state leaders. If they have come to power with broad public approval, they may consider their desires to have the support of the people. Therefore, they consider their orders more meaningful than democratic methods and processes. A similar situation is currently seen in Nepal.

Statements made by ministers of a government formed with strong public support targeting contractors or critics have been controversial. Minister for Infrastructure Development Sunil Lamsal has made statements that incite violence by saying that the contractor's 'legs should be broken'. Such methods seem to be trying to establish that government ministers have become overpowered, that they think that whatever they do will happen, and that others cannot be controlled through threats and violence. Such a style of ruler in a democratic country is a matter of concern. This can only be controlled by the ministers themselves admitting their mistakes and not repeating them, or by the citizens' polite protest.

Last Sunday, during the monitoring of the Nagdhunga-Muglin road project, Minister Lamsal had said, ‘Where on earth is the contractor who moved the electricity pole? Find him and keep him here. If he doesn’t work, don’t break his leg. It doesn’t matter.’ In fact, before the election, the current Prime Minister Balendra Shah had said, targeting the contractor, through an election rally in Dhangadhi, ‘The road that should be built in two years will not be built for 20 years. It should have been built in one and a half years. That is our agenda. Whether it is tied to a tree, made to lie on the road, or put in a cage, the road should have been built.’

In the rule of law, the court is responsible for determining punishment. The government can investigate, facilitate the investigation, and government agencies can also claim punishment in court.  Similarly, a few days ago, Finance Minister Swarnim Wagle, while answering questions raised on the budget in Parliament, had warned that he would make their ‘scandal’ public. When the MPs started raising questions about the change in tax rates, he had told the questioners, ‘May the honorable gentlemen who pointed fingers at me also attain this moral courage and moral height. Best wishes. But are we unaware of your cases? They will also be revealed.’

The same ego is found in all three threatening statements – they must get what they want. Whether it is the fault of others or not, they should be able to determine the nature of the punishment. Whereas, in the rule of law, the court is responsible for determining punishment. The government can investigate, facilitate the investigation, and government agencies can also claim punishment in court. However, the investigative agency is responsible for investigating who and how, and the court is responsible for determining what punishment to give to whom.

For government officials to say that they will give such and such punishment to anyone without the court finding them guilty and punishing them is an attempt to elevate themselves above the court. This is unacceptable. Lamsal and Shah’s statements are also ‘violence-inducing’. Because, there is no law that envisages punishments that cause dismemberment such as breaking legs and tying to trees. On the one hand, the desire to stand on the street and impose punishments and in the process, impose punishments that are not envisaged by any law, envisages a style of governance that is above the constitution and the law. It gives a glimpse of the sarcastic but autocratic style of governance that says, ‘After the war, he spoke’.

Minister Wagle’s statement is riddled with revenge and the ego of being right alone. It is desirable for him to answer the questions raised against him and refute the accusations leveled against him. But rather than clarifying the accusations against him, he has warned that ‘if he does not remain silent, we will also open a case against the accuser.’ Maybe, he is innocent. Maybe, the one raising the question is guilty.

However, this cannot be a game of keeping quiet and avoiding everything. If there are other involved cases, an investigation will be conducted. If found guilty, action will be taken. This is a regular process. This is what punishes the wrongdoers and sends a message to the rest. Such investigations and actions are a regular undertaking of state governance. If the state has information, it must investigate. But Wagle has tried to make it a matter of conditional warning. If he does not initiate investigation and action despite knowing about the scandal of others, then questions will now be raised against him. But amidst all this, answering the charges against him cannot be a matter of implicating others.

In addition to the minister's statement, there are some other incidents in which the state seems to have a punishment-first mentality and give low priority to due process. It seems that an attempt is being made to firmly establish the 'detain first, then listen' style. The detention-first style of governance creates an attitude that someone must be punished, whether the person concerned is at fault or not. This creates fear in the society. What should have been done was that if the state body suspects someone of committing illegal activities, it should investigate, take statements from the person concerned as required, file a case in court and implement the sentence given by the court.