The government is currently in trouble as it has failed to garner an adequate majority to endorse the ordinances it introduced last month. At the heart of the controversy surrounding these ordinances is the one related to land. As the coalition government of the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML struggles to secure support for the land-related ordinance, an opposition party in the federal parliament, Janata Samajbadi Party-Nepal (JSP-N), has even alleged that land mafia are putting intense pressure on the government to get the land ordinance endorsed at any cost. JSP-N Chairman Upendra Yadav has gone to the extent to accuse the government of attempting to resort to horse-trading of lawmakers to ensure the bill is passed. Although not everything political leaders say can be trusted, the government should not ignore such accusations. If the government's intentions are genuine and not aimed at benefiting vested interest groups, it should be able to convince other parties and the general public that the bill is meant to serve the interests of ordinary people while proving the allegations wrong.
Prime Minister K. P. Sharma Oli's government had issued six ordinances, including the one related to land. The government's decision to issue ordinances instead of summoning a parliamentary session was widely criticized. Eventually, the parliamentary session was called, but the government still appears reluctant to present the ordinances in parliament for a decision, as the ruling parties do not have a clear majority in the National Assembly, the upper house of the federal parliament. In a parliamentary system, the legitimacy of the government is not questioned even if it lacks a majority in the upper house. Moreover, the government does not face a constitutional crisis even if these ordinances are not endorsed. The constitution grants the government the right to issue ordinances only in urgent matters. However, suspicions have arisen as none of the six ordinances introduced by the government appear to be of urgent nature. If they were truly urgent, the government could have recommended that the president summon a parliamentary session at the earliest and fast-track the passage of amendments in the relevant Acts.
As each successive government has benefited certain vested interest groups by giving away government-owned land, the land-related ordinance has raised suspicions from various quarters. Given that a senior leader of a major political party in parliament is alleging foul play behind the bill, the government should come clean by ensuring transparency, including its reasons for the ill-timed introduction of the ordinance. The government must be able to assure the public that its decision to introduce the ordinance is not driven by ulterior motives. It must present itself as accountable to the people who elected it, rather than to donors or business groups. Allegations have surfaced that the government is attempting to pass the ordinances through horse-trading of lawmakers. Regardless of whether the ordinances are passed, the government must be able to publicly and convincingly refute such allegations and justify the need for the ordinances. If the government believes these ordinances are crucial and need to be endorsed at the earliest, it should initiate serious discussions with the opposition to address their concerns.