Kathmandu, Nepal — Disruptions and slogan-shouting in Parliament are not new to Nepal’s political landscape. It has become almost a norm for the opposition to protest government decisions, while the ruling side pushes forward its agenda, often resulting in obstruction and disorderly conduct in the House.
However, the current parliamentary deadlock appears to be of a different nature. Unlike the usual disputes over policies, programmes, or legislation, this time the controversy is centered on the absence of Prime Minister Balen Shah.
Members of Parliament expect the Prime Minister to be present not only to respond to their queries but also to clarify the government’s policies and programmes. However, Shah’s absence from the House has triggered strong objections from opposition parties, leading to repeated disruptions.
As the obstruction continued, Speaker Dol Prasad Aryal met Prime Minister Shah on Thursday, carrying a message from his party chair, Rabi Lamichhane, urging him to attend Parliament. In response, Prime Minister Shah stated that he would “appear in Parliament at an appropriate time and respond to lawmakers’ questions.”
The Speaker later informed members of the Business Advisory Committee about this development. However, as the Prime Minister remained absent, opposition lawmakers resumed protests in the House.
Despite failing to convince the Prime Minister—who is also a senior leader of his own party—the Speaker proceeded with parliamentary proceedings amid continued slogan-shouting.
During the protests, the House passed the Alternative Development Finance Mobilization Bill. Finance Minister Dr. Swarnim Wagle presented a proposal for clause-wise discussion, and the Speaker put the amendments to a decision before ultimately endorsing the bill.
Similarly, amid the disruption, proposals to deliberate on the House of Representatives Member Election (First Amendment) Bill, the Voter List (First Amendment) Bill, and the National Forensic Science Laboratory (Establishment and Operation) Bill were also approved.
The Prime Minister’s absence—despite expectations that he should voluntarily address Parliament regarding his own policies and programmes—has not only been seen as unusual but has also sparked widespread speculation.
Some analysts argue that Shah’s reportedly introverted nature may make him reluctant to face unnecessary public exposure. Others, however, interpret his absence as a sign of weakening parliamentary norms and values, with some even suggesting that it could be a rehearsal for undermining the current democratic system.
