KATHMANDU, Aug 20: The opposition’s role in Parliament is not merely to oppose the government but also to offer alternatives. The strategy behind one-sided opposition and mounting pressure appears to be aimed primarily at weakening the government by whatever means possible. Since the formation of the new government, the main opposition Nepali Congress, UML and others have continued to present their views in the same old style.
At present, their failure to present rational arguments about what should be done and where the government is heading has repeatedly prompted points of order, with some remarks even having to be removed from the parliamentary record.
During Wednesday’s meeting of the House of Representatives, a request was made to remove words such as “Balenism” from the parliamentary record when UML parliamentary party leader Ram Bahadur Thapa was speaking. Thapa, arguing that the current government had failed to deliver, urged the Rastriya Swatantra Party chairperson to initiate an immediate reshuffle of the government.
“The RSP chairperson, in his capacity as the party’s principal political leader, must immediately take the initiative to reshuffle the government, including the replacement of the prime minister,” he said.
He warned that protests could otherwise follow. “One final option remains. Otherwise, to restore issues of national sovereignty, democracy and people’s livelihoods, a massive and unimaginable people’s tsunami, greater than those of 1951, 1990 and 2006, will soon come from all four directions. It will certainly come,” he said.
Thapa accused the government led by Balen Shah of creating a “serious crisis for national sovereignty, democracy and people’s livelihoods.”
It is parliament’s prerogative to designate a party as oppositi...
Describing the sources of the government’s power as “the Army, algorithms and America,” Thapa brought highly sensitive issues such as Tibetan refugees, the Dalai Lama’s birthday and geopolitical maneuvering to the centre of parliamentary debate. Analysts say he made these arguments at a time when the government appears to be moving toward addressing concerns related to neighbouring China and maintaining diplomatic balance.
Some party leaders had previously objected to dragging the Nepal Army, a politically neutral and sensitive institution, into political disputes. After some lawmakers from the ruling side and even some from Thapa’s UML objected to Thapa’s remarks, terms such as “a mob of anarchists,” “those who burn the country while draped in the national flag” and “the Nepal Army as a silent spectator” were removed from the parliamentary record on May 13, 2026.
Analysts say UML Chair KP Sharma Oli has allowed such rhetoric politically as part of his effort to keep the opposition role aggressive and maintain the organisation of his traditional supporters as well as former Maoist cadres.
Analysts suggest that instead of relying on anger and warnings, the opposition should adopt five concrete alternatives.
First, when criticizing a government policy, opposition parties should present their own clear alternative on the same issue. If they disagree with the government’s approach toward China, they should clearly state their own geopolitical position.
Second, rather than creating a commotion, they should express disagreement through parliamentary mechanisms such as amendment proposals, private member’s bills or policy proposals.
Third, on issues affecting people’s daily lives, such as inflation, employment and healthcare, they should offer data-based, solution-oriented suggestions instead of emotional accusations.
Fourth, they should commit to keeping politically neutral institutions such as the Army out of political disputes and instead seek accountability through constitutional bodies.
Fifth, instead of warning of protests or a “people’s tsunami,” they should propose all-party dialogue and committee-level discussions.
According to analysts, without these measures, the opposition’s aggression will remain opposition for the sake of opposition. That risks pushing parliamentary debate toward confrontation rather than making it constructive.
Despite the opposition’s strong aggression, the ruling side has appeared restrained in Parliament. According to a political analyst, direct confrontation in Parliament could give the opposition’s provocative agenda greater media attention and risk dragging national security institutions into political disputes.
The ruling side therefore appears to have chosen procedural measures, such as raising points of order and seeking the removal of controversial remarks from the parliamentary record, rather than engaging in heated exchanges.
RSP lawmaker Samikchya Baskota raised a point of order over Thapa’s use of terms, including “Balenism.”
After Thapa compared the current system of governance with “Mahendranism,” “Gyanendranism” and “Balenism”, Baskota raised a point of order, citing Rule 21(d) of the parliamentary regulations and Articles 76 and 17(d) of the Constitution.
Baskota said the freedom to form political parties is a fundamental right and that any political party can come to power through the people’s votes, meaning no one has a monopoly over government. “Citizens gave us their votes and brought us to this place, and a government was formed,” she said. “Opposition leaders have repeatedly insulted voters and mocked democracy from this very House.”
Baskota claimed that Thapa’s use of the term “Balenism” was vulgar, insulting and objectionable. She said the government had been formed under Article 76 of the Constitution and urged Thapa to read the Constitution. She also called on lawmakers to use dignified and constitutional language while speaking in Parliament and to respect the people’s mandate.
She further demanded that the unparliamentary words used by Thapa be removed from the parliamentary record.
