A Wise Retreat by the Opposition, But Accountability Still Matters

The decision by opposition parties to lift their obstruction of the House of Representatives (HoR) and allow budget deliberations to proceed deserves appreciation. At a time when the country faces pressing economic challenges and parliament has important business before it, continuing the deadlock indefinitely would have served neither the public interest nor the parliamentary system. By stepping back from confrontation and allowing the House to function, the opposition has demonstrated political maturity and a commitment to its constitutional responsibilities. For nine days, parliamentary proceedings remained stalled over Prime Minister Balendra Shah's controversial statement suggesting that Nepal had also encroached upon Indian territory in certain areas. The opposition demanded that the Prime Minister Balendra Shah clarify his remarks and apologise, arguing that such comments on a sensitive national issue required accountability before parliament. As it became increasingly evident that the Prime Minister Shah was unwilling to appear in the parliament to address the controversy, concerns mounted that the budget discussion itself could be jeopardised. In choosing to end the obstruction, opposition parties have rightly recognised that parliament's primary responsibility is to deliberate on matters of national importance. Budget discussions, which directly affect the lives and livelihoods of millions of Nepalis, cannot be held hostage indefinitely to a political dispute. The opposition's role is not merely to protest but also to ensure that democratic institutions continue to function effectively. By allowing parliamentary business to resume, it has acted in accordance with that responsibility.

The remarks made by Nepali Congress (NC) parliamentary leader Vhishmaraj Angdembe reflect this understanding. Parliament cannot afford to spend valuable time trapped in a single controversy when numerous issues affecting citizens demand attention. A functioning parliament provides the opposition with a platform to question the government, scrutinise policies and represent public concerns. A paralysed parliament benefits no one. Yet the opposition's retreat should not be mistaken for a vindication of the Prime Minister's position. If anything, the episode raises troubling questions about the government's attitude towards parliamentary accountability. In any parliamentary democracy, the prime minister is answerable to parliament. This principle lies at the heart of democratic governance. When a statement made by the head of government generates serious concern among lawmakers, the expectation is straightforward: the prime minister should appear before the parliament, explain the context of the remarks and address legitimate questions. Such accountability strengthens institutions; it does not weaken them. Unfortunately, the government chose a different course. Despite repeated demands from opposition parties, Prime Minister Shah declined to appear before parliament. Alternative proposals involving other ministers responding on his behalf failed to address the fundamental issue. Accountability cannot always be delegated. Certain matters require the Prime Minister's direct engagement with the legislature.

The Speaker, too, has a responsibility to protect the dignity and authority of parliament. While parliamentary procedures must not be misused for partisan purposes, neither should they be interpreted in ways that diminish the parliament's oversight role. Parliament is not merely a venue for approving budgets and legislation; it is the central institution through which the executive is held accountable. The opposition was correct to raise concerns over the Prime Minister's remarks. Equally, it is correct to recognise that its broader responsibility lies in ensuring parliament remains functional. Democratic politics requires both vigilance and restraint. The opposition has now demonstrated the latter. The government should demonstrate the former by showing greater respect for parliamentary scrutiny. The controversy may have subsided for now, but the underlying issue remains unresolved. The prime minister's reluctance to engage directly with parliament risks creating an unfortunate precedent. No government should view parliamentary accountability as optional, nor should any Prime Minister consider himself above questioning by elected representatives. The opposition has done the right thing by ending the obstruction and allowing the parliament to perform its duties. The government should respond in the same spirit by reaffirming its commitment to parliamentary norms and democratic accountability. Ultimately, public confidence in parliament depends not only on whether the opposition acts responsibly, but also on whether those in power respect the institutions to which they are accountable.