The Balendra Shah government came to power promising to break away from the political culture that had long defined Nepal's public institutions. It pledged transparency, merit-based governance, and an end to favoritism, nepotism, and backroom deals. That promise has now faced one of its toughest tests. A series of appointments to public organizations has sparked growing scrutiny, with critics arguing that the much-talked-about competitive selection process has become little more than a procedural ritual. While ministries insist that appointments are based on open competition and institutional requirements, many of the final selections tell a different story. Merely 36 days after the current government was formed, the government issued the Special Provision Ordinance on the Removal of Public Office Bearers. By amending 110 laws, it removed 1,534 office bearers from state institutions. The government claimed this was a necessary first step toward a fresh start—a complete cleansing of public institutions based on the principle of merit. Since then, around 40 percent of those vacancies have been filled, including leadership positions at universities, regulatory bodies, commissions, and public corporations. Yet some of those removed have quietly returned to the very institutions they previously occupied. Several new appointees have also been linked to past controversies, while others appear to fall outside the government's own eligibility standards.
In Chitwan, youth entrepreneurs are producing paper from elepha...
The appointment of an octogenarian as chairperson of the Nepal Airlines Corporation despite a stated age limit of 65, and the selection of the Civil Hospital's executive director despite his previous suspension over a medical negligence case, have intensified questions about whether the rules apply equally to everyone. Many of these appointees possess experience and expertise. However, the real issue is entirely different. If the outcomes are predetermined, competitive selection loses its significance. Open applications become little more than an exercise in choosing among applicants rather than a genuine search for the most qualified candidate. This was precisely the culture that the Gen Z movement challenged. Young protesters did not merely demand a change of faces in government. They demanded a different way of governing. Their message was simple: public office should be earned through competence, and candidates with the highest standards of integrity and accountability—not political proximity or personal connections—should be appointed. That expectation helped create the political momentum that eventually brought this government to power. Ironically, the government now risks repeating the habits of the administrations it once criticized. Nepotism and favoritism may take new forms, but they will still damage the government's credibility if familiar names repeatedly emerge from supposedly competitive processes. Reappointing former office holders without convincing justification only strengthens the perception that the competition was never intended to produce fresh choices. If there are very few genuine choices, one might as well have no choice at all.
The same applies to the disregard for, or neglect of, eligibility criteria, which undermines the legitimacy and credibility of the law in the eyes of the public. These issues will have consequences far beyond the political sphere. Weak and controversial appointment practices discourage qualified professionals from applying, breed frustration among young talent, and ultimately weaken institutional performance. The Shah government still has an opportunity to correct the course. It should publish evaluation scores, interview criteria, and the reasons behind every major appointment. Independent observers should be included in high-level selection panels, while exceptions to eligibility standards should either be fully justified or avoided altogether. More importantly, recruitment processes should be transparent enough for unsuccessful candidates and the public to clearly understand why one individual was chosen over another. Governments are remembered not only for the people they appoint but also for the standards they establish. If this administration genuinely wants to prove that it represents a break from Nepal's old political culture, it must ensure that competition is more than a slogan. Merit must not only exist—it must be visible. Only then will public appointments strengthen institutions instead of deepening public distrust.
