Ministers' (wayward) visits

When media entrepreneur Jamim Shah was shot dead in the capital in broad daylight on Sunday it wasn’t Home Minister Bhim Rawal alone who was away in China. Accompanying him were chief of the Nepal Police Ramesh Chand Thakuri and chief of the Armed Police Force Sanat Kumar Basnet. Still worse, neither was Minister of State for Home Rijban Ansari given the responsibility of leading the ministry in Rawal’s absence nor was any other minister delegated that authority. That practically left the Home Ministry with a leadership vacuum, albeit just for a few days. Rawal is, however, not the only minister to have gone abroad without delegating his responsibilities to another minister. Energy Minister Prakash Sharan Mahat is also out of the country but no one else has been given charge of his ministry. Mahat was also looking after the Irrigation Ministry in the absence of Irrigation Minister Bal Krishna Khand, which means that in effect two ministries—Energy and Irrigation--are without any leadership at present.



Some ministers have argued that it was not necessary to delegate authority to other ministers or to their juniors when they went out of the country for a short period of time. They have cited examples of many other countries where not just ministers but even prime ministers or heads of state do not delegate their powers when they travel abroad. It’s true such examples do exist. But it’s more a question of what is/was our own practice. Since the king’s time we had a practice of ministers, the prime minister and the head of state leaving the country only after delegating his functions to someone else. And such a practice has its benefits as well— there is always someone in charge who can be held to account.



Ministers leaving the country without informing the prime minister, because of which he fails to assign charge of the ministries concerned to some others, is purely a matter of indiscipline. If the ministers are not happy with the existing system or feel the need to change it, they should raise the issue and get the change effected. But accepting the system in principle yet not following it in practice is a crude display of dishonesty. This wasn’t expected of Rawal and Mahat— two of the heavyweights in the present cabinet. These cases also show weak handling of cabinet affairs by Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal. Whether it’s a one-party government or a coalition ours is a prime ministerial model where the prime minister is always supreme. Prime Minister Nepal should, therefore, take the initiative to address such instances, for the credit or discredit for how this government functions will eventually be his.

Related story

RSP ministers vacate quarters despite continued support for gov...