The initial evaluation of the government formed under the leadership of senior Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) leader Balendra Shah, which won about two-thirds of the seats in the House of Representatives and 48 percent of the popular vote, has begun after the honeymoon period. In a democratic system, the first 100 days after the formation of the government are called honeymoon. According to democratic values, customs, and traditions, the government is not criticized much during the honeymoon period by respecting public opinion. The opposition parties, which are 'religiously inclined to criticize the government', also do not criticize it harshly during the honeymoon period. This government received maximum benefit of doubt during the honeymoon period.

Initially, the people had great hopes and enthusiasm for the government. But with the end of the honeymoon, it seems that these hopes and enthusiasm have turned into doubts and disappointment. Although the government claims to be successful, the opposition parties, intellectual community, civil society, and the media have called it a controversial and mediocre government like in the past. Prime Minister Shah's controversial statements and working style and the government's unresponsive attitude have raised some serious questions. Therefore, an objective analysis has been made here about the government's honeymoon, Shah's working style and the possible scenarios that may be created due to the government.

Devaluation of democratic systems and institutions
Democracy is a system and an institution. Democracy does not mean just a system of governance, it is a way of life. If democratic institutions are functional and effective, the system will develop, and only after the system is developed, the system will develop. There is a democratic system, constitution and parties. But ironically, the government and parties have not been able to assimilate democracy as a system and institution. On the one hand, the expected institutional development of democracy has not been achieved even for three decades. On the other hand, democratic, constitutional and public institutions are not functional, strong and capable. Since these institutions are not strong, capable and functional, the government, parties and leadership have not been responsible. In some times and contexts, there have been contradictions and conflicts between the executive, the legislature and the executive. Although the judiciary and constitutional organs are the pillars of democracy, they have not been able to function independently and autonomously according to democratic values ​​and the vision of the constitution. Therefore, these institutions have also been losing the trust of the people. The democratic system and institutions have been devalued and neglected since the time the

The democratic system and institutions have been devalued and neglected since the government was formed. Contrary to the spirit of the democratic system and the constitution, power has been centralized in the Singha Durbar and the Prime Minister. The narrative has been made that the Prime Minister should be more powerful for delivery than the system and institutions. government was formed. Contrary to the spirit of the democratic system and the constitution, power has been centralized in the Singha Durbar and the Prime Minister. A narrative has been created that the Prime Minister should be more powerful for delivery than the system and institutions. More powerful than responsibility, illusion than vision, and propaganda than performance have been defined as the criteria for leadership. Magic, miracles, and stunt-based tendencies seem to be dominant among the Prime Minister, ministers, and leaders and workers of the ruling party. But advocating a powerful prime minister by undervaluing the system and institutions is a dictatorial concept and a misleading commentary of populists. Those who propagate magic, miracles and stunts are not democrats, they are populists.

If an absolutely powerful government and a strong Prime Minister are expected, then the king was more powerful than the current Prime Minister and there was political stability during the Panchayat period. Should we follow dictatorship and totalitarianism under such a delusion? If democratic institutions are not effective and functional, then world history has confirmed that dictatorial, totalitarian and populist rulers have been born from the democratic system. Shah, who came to power on the basis of popular slogans of corruption control, good governance and delivery, has also taken some positive initiatives. But the government's attitude of ignoring existing institutions and laws is undemocratic, the trend is populist and the working style is controversial.

People's rights curtailed
In the past, after KP Oli's government closed some social media and stifled the right of citizens to speak, there was a Gen-G movement against it. Yesterday, Shah himself challenged the government by saying 'Let the government speak'. But today, Shah's own government has dared to curtail the constitutionally guaranteed civil rights, has conspired to curtail freedom of expression and the press, and has adopted a suicidal strategy to intimidate some media houses, parties and leaders who criticize the government. During the autocratic era of King Gyanendra, the media, which had been fearlessly writing and speaking in favor of people's rights and democracy without fearing even the army, was not afraid of such a trend of the government.

But after the government-planned and protected vehicles were parked in front of media houses including Kantipur, Online News, Himalaya TV and Congress President Gagan Thapa's house, the government's intentions and conspiracy have been exposed. This is state-protected criminalization and vigilantism, which is objectionable and condemnable. Even the ruling Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) President Ravi Lamichhane has condemned and condemned such criminal behavior and demanded action against the culprits. Such vigilantism is a distorted version of the Panchayat era. The Maoists who came to power in 2065 also practiced vigilantism in this way. How did the Panchayat and the Maoists fall? Therefore, such a behavior is also certain to end.

The reality that Ganesh Nepali, Ashwin Raut, and Vivek Mandal had to self-immolate because of the government is as clear as the sun. With their self-immolation, the people's hopes, faith and dreams towards this government have also been burnt, while the hopes and faith towards Shah and the government have also been shattered. A few years ago, when businessman Prem Acharya self-immolated, the then Mayor Shah accused the government of being a murderer. But in the current self-immolation, there is neither tribute, nor sympathy, nor empathy towards the deceased and the grieving family members. Why such a double character? Is the role and responsibility of the Prime Minister, who should be the guardian of the people, like this? Is this the government, which is citizen-friendly, nor rights-friendly? Why is the government formed on the foundation of the Gen-G rebellion carried out by Majid Ansari, oppressing the Ansaris today? Will there be civil rights under Shah's rule or not? Will there be human rights or not? Will there be the right of citizens to speak or not? What is the difference between the Oli government yesterday and the Shah government today? The cover is different, but the trend is the same.

The 'new' government, which promised to end unwanted partisanship and practice healthy democracy, has followed in the same footsteps as the old parties did yesterday. The appointment of the Chief Justice and the questioning of the officials of the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority in the Prime Minister's Office are not only objectionable, but also against the spirit of the democratic system and the Constitution. If the officials of the authority have not performed their duties according to the values ​​and objectives of the institution, then new officials should have been appointed. If not, to what extent is it arbitrary to treat a constitutional body like a branch under the Prime Minister's Office?

Has the audacity to place the judiciary and constitutional institutions under the Prime Minister's Office? What will be the future of democracy with such an arbitrary trend? In the name of ending political recruitment centers and partisanship, the government has started a vicious cycle of nationalization in constitutional and diplomatic bodies and academic and educational institutions under another guise. If the sovereign parliament is being continuously ignored like this, what kind of attitude and behavior should it have towards other state bodies? Former Prime Minister and former Chief Justice Sushila Karki, who was once addressed as 'mother' by Prime Minister Shah, has also strongly criticized the government's tendency.

Due to the government's oppressive policy, displaced squatters like Indra Bahadur Rai, Rabin Tamang and others were forced to commit suicide. In fact, this is not suicide, but murder by the state. Is this how the state treats landless citizens? Opposition parties, intellectual communities and civil society have been harshly criticizing the oppressive and irresponsible policy carried out in the name of solving the squatter problem. But the government did not listen, will not listen. A respectful and sustainable solution to the landless-squatter problem or repression and displacement? Do squatters have the right to live under the Shah's rule or not? If so, why are citizens being oppressed in this way? If there is no minimum humane treatment and compassion for squatters, it is useless to expect decent democratic practices such as human rights, freedom, transparency, and accountability from this government.

Prime Minister Shah's unresponsive tendency
In a democracy, the people, civil society, intellectual community, and media constantly question, warn, and monitor the government, parties, leadership, and state bodies. The more questions, warnings, and monitoring are done, the more the government and state bodies are accountable to the people. In a democracy, this is the natural right of the people. The soul of a democratic system is accountability. Without accountability, no government can be democratic. But this government is not accountable, the Prime Minister and ministers are not accountable.

The decisions of the government, the Prime Minister and the ministers are neither lawful nor transparent . Prime Minister Shah neither communicates with the political party, nor with the intellectual community and civil society . He does not discuss and consult even with his own party . He does not attend the meeting of the central committee of his own party, nor the meeting of the parliamentary party . Even the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and President Lamichhane have become helpless shadows of the government and Shah . He is neither accountable to the people, nor to the parliament and the party . Even though he was elected as the Prime Minister through a democratic and party system, his conduct, culture and working style are neither democratic nor party . He does not seem to have assimilated democratic values, beliefs and principles, nor does he respect public opinion .

The cover is democratic . But his behavior shows an undemocratic tendency . In fact, the government is run in the style of an underground gang . His working style seems to be like that of the Chakravarti Emperor . It seems that he has only used the democratic system and the party . In a democratic system, the Prime Minister is controlled by either the parliament or the party. If the parliament or the party cannot control him, then such a government or Prime Minister becomes autocratic and authoritarian. Now neither the parliament nor the party can control him. The government being unaccountable is the first step towards authoritarianism and totalitarianism. The more unaccountable the government becomes, the more authoritarian and totalitarian tendencies increase. Authoritarian rule is being rehearsed by making artificial statements as the hero of good governance and delivery. What greater misfortune could there be for democracy?

Empire of propaganda
On the one hand, there has been an audacity to narrow the rights of the people, freedom of the press and democratic 'space', on the other hand, the government itself has run an empire of propaganda through social media and digital platforms. Shah, who has won the election and the party based on social media and digital platforms, has been cyberattacking his opponents and competitors. New offspring of Hitler's propaganda minister and the pioneer of the propaganda theory that even a lie can be established as truth if told a thousand times, Joseph Goebbels, have been born in Singha Durbar and Baluwatar. In a country like ours where media literacy is weak, the government has been misusing social media and digital platforms as a weapon to serve political interests by spreading misleading and false information. Since the owner of Algorithm Expert and Troll Nepal is the advisor to the Prime Minister, what is the strategy regarding social media and digital platforms? It is as bright as the sun. National and international think tanks have concluded that social media and digital platforms have encouraged populism, illiberalism, ultranationalism, and intolerance worldwide. वैकल्पिक भाष्य निर्माण गर्ने नाममा पपुलिस्ट, अनुदारवादी, अतिवादी, उग्रराष्ट्रवादीहरूको प्रोपोगान्डा मेसिन भएको संज्ञा दिँदै मिसइन्फर्मेसन, डिसइन्फर्मेसन, घृणा, असहिष्णुता फैलाउने औजार भएको टिप्पणी गरेका छन् । तथ्य र तथ्यांकका आधारमा सिद्धान्त, विचार, नीतिमाथि बहस र विमर्श बहस गरिँदैन, मिथ्यांकको आधारमा अतिरञ्जत र अस्वस्थ आरोप–प्रत्यारोप गरिन्छ । जसले चर्को स्वरमा निन्दा र भर्त्सना गर्‍यो, त्यही क्रान्तिकारी भन्ने भ्रामक भाष्य र मानक स्थापित हुँदै गएको छ । मूलधार, मध्यमार्ग र उदार मूल्य–मान्यतामाथि आक्रमण गरी ‘लोकप्रिय’ र ‘नायक’ हुने पपुलिस्ट तथा स्टन्टवादी प्रवृत्ति हाबी भएको देखिन्छ ।

यस्तो प्रवृत्ति यति उत्कर्ष बिन्दुमा पुगेको छ कि कुनै विचार, पार्टी वा पात्रलाई कि देवत्वकरण गरिन्छ कि दानवीकरण । अतिरञ्जित, असहिष्णु र विषाक्त प्रोपोगान्डालाई लोकप्रिय भाष्यका रूपमा परिभाषित र आत्मसात् गर्ने दुर्भाग्यपूर्ण प्रवृत्ति बढ्दै गइरहेको छ । यस्तो घातक प्रवृत्ति र विषाक्त भाष्यलाई सरकारले अधिकतम ‘सदुपयोग’ गर्दै आएको छ । लाइक, सेयर, भ्युज, कमेन्ट सरकारको प्रमुख खेती भएको छ, अल्गोरिदम प्रमुख औजार भएको छ र मिसइन्फर्मेसन तथा डिसइन्फर्मेसनका आधारमा प्रायोजित र विषाक्त भाष्य मूलमन्त्र भएको छ । सरकार र सरकारी संयन्त्र नै विषाक्त र प्रायोजित भाष्यको कारखाना भएका छन् । जब राज्य नै संगठित रूपमा प्रोपोगान्डा र अपराधीकरणमा उद्यत हुन्छ, त्यसले गम्भीर संकट सिर्जना गर्छ ।