Balen Shah's Rise Signals Shift: Balancing Risk and Caution in Nepali Leadership

The opportunity to lead Nepal's newly elected government has been taken by 35-year-old youth Balen Shah. In a country where the tradition of older leaders retiring from politics is rare, having a young prime minister is a sign of significant change. This shift challenges the traditional notion that intelligence and decision-making ability are characteristics exclusive to senior leaders.

Balen received a mandate through the election based on the premise that young leaders are equally capable of handling complex national issues with fresh perspectives, energy, and innovative ideas. Experience is not measured by age alone; it is also shaped by knowledge, vision, and the capacity to learn and adapt. With their activism and commitment, Nepal's new generation of leaders holds the potential to bring transformative policies and guide the country toward progress.

What coordination of risk and prudence, or zeal and wisdom, is necessary for effective leadership? This question is the main theme of this article. Risk and caution are subjects that strategic and democratic leadership must consider.

Risk and Caution

In a democratic society, leadership is measured by complex and contradictory expectations. That is—the leader must take risks courageously, but also exercise enough caution to prevent unnecessary damage. This tension is particularly evident when comparing young leaders with experienced ones. Young leaders are often known for their energy, innovation, and willingness to challenge the existing system, while experienced leaders prioritize stability, prudence, and long-term impact.

However, viewing these perspectives as completely opposite poles is an oversimplification. Neither taking uncontrolled risks nor exercising excessive caution is sufficient. Effective democratic leadership arises from the balance of both. In a democracy, policy changes can affect public trust, making perspective crucial.

In decision-making, risk itself is neither inherently good nor bad. It is a tool. In a democratic system, leaders are accountable to the people. Risk management determines not only policy outcomes but also public trust. Young leaders are often ready to take risks because they are less influenced by past failures or rigid systems. They are willing to challenge old policies, experiment with new approaches, and react quickly to unforeseen problems. This tendency can be a powerful means of progress, especially in times of crisis or stagnation.

Looking back, no other prime ministers are as unforgettable for their contributions as B.P. Koirala. Therefore, those who criticized B.P. during his lifetime are now praising some aspect of his contribution. It is not that B.P. did not make mistakes when making decisions. For example, instead of launching an armed struggle against the Panchayat, he could have reconciled with King Mahendra first instead of going into exile in India.

In this article, I feel it is necessary to place more emphasis on democratic leadership.

Democratic Leadership

B.P. Koirala was a leading political figure in Nepal and became the first popularly elected Prime Minister at the age of 44. Many prime ministers have followed B.P., but none seem comparable to him. Certainly, Girija Prasad Koirala contributed to resolving the Maoist insurgency, and Prachanda contributed to leading Nepal to a republic, but others have not made any significant contributions.

Looking back, no other prime ministers are as unforgettable for their contributions as B.P. Koirala. Therefore, those who criticized B.P. during his lifetime are now praising some aspect of his contribution. It is not that B.P. did not make mistakes when making decisions. For example, instead of launching an armed struggle against the Panchayat, he could have reconciled with King Mahendra first instead of going into exile in India. King Mahendra is equally responsible for dissolving parliament and imprisoning the elected prime minister for eight years.

B.P., the hero of the 2007 revolution that ushered the country from the clutches of the autocratic Rana regime into a democratic era, dedicated his life to democratic values, social justice, and the rights of the people. He never hesitated to make bold decisions and take risks in difficult situations, which allowed him to provide guidance through many challenging political circumstances. B.P. is still remembered today as a symbol of democracy and responsible leadership.

When discussing democratic leadership, the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru serves as an example. However, in the Modi era today, Gandhi and Nehru are being unnecessarily criticized in India. Young Gandhi developed the principles of civil rights movements and Satyagraha in South Africa, laying the foundation for non-violent leadership, and upon returning to India, he kept the people organized in the independence movement for a long time.

Nehru became India's first Prime Minister at the age of 50, gaining political experience, and played a significant role in shaping modern India's structure, industrialization, education system, and foreign policy. Their success is seen not in immediate impact but in long-term social, political, and national transformation, which shows that the influence of leaders is measured by lasting vision and leadership capacity, not by youth or quick actions.

John F. Kennedy became the President of the United States at the age of 43. He is known as a leader who demonstrated surprising patience and strategic ability in high-risk situations. Despite concerns about his lack of youthful experience, he was capable of making decisive and bold decisions. This was especially true during the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962, when the US faced a difficult situation with the possibility of nuclear conflict with the Soviet Union.

Kennedy carefully consulted various experts and advisors and managed the crisis by balancing diplomatic restraint and firmness. His youthful perspective provided the ability to consider alternatives. Instead of an immediate military attack, he decided to impose a naval blockade on Cuba. Kennedy demonstrated that effective decision-making does not depend solely on age. It depends on knowledge, clarity, the ability to think, and the capacity to make judicious decisions even under pressure.

Kennedy's leadership during the Cuban Missile Crisis is still considered an excellent example that youth can demonstrate capable leadership in risky situations. Looking at the leadership of Olof Palme of Sweden in the context of democratic leadership and the approach to taking risks, he is truly an inspiring example. He was not limited to promoting social reform and equality in Sweden; he also presented a bold and clear perspective on sensitive issues in world politics.

Palme opposed the apartheid system in South Africa, criticized US intervention in the Vietnam War, and supported just economic policies in developing countries. Speaking out clearly on such internationally controversial issues was a risky move for both immediate popularity and political security. However, he firmly adhered to his values and vision. But he took decisions as calculated risks.

The combination of standing for truth and justice without endangering Sweden's internal stability and democratic process made him a courageous yet prudent leader. In Sweden, he brought reforms in education, health, social security, and workers' rights, which were strategic steps to ensure long-term stability and equality for the future.

Palme's leadership clearly shows that effective leadership in a democratic society requires courage, vision, and the ability to take risks, along with prudence, calculated decisions, and long-term thinking. Palme taught that taking thoughtful risks is the most effective way for long-term change when facing international disputes, social inequality, and political challenges. Per Albin Hansson, the proponent of the welfare state concept in Sweden, inspired Palme's vision for social democracy, equality, and universal welfare policies. Building on Hansson's ideas, Palme emphasized a more active foreign policy and international solidarity.

The change brought about by Nelson Mandela's leadership in South Africa is a significant historical example. Mandela came to power through democratic elections after a long period of apartheid rule and completely transformed the country's international image. He worked to unite a divided society by prioritizing reconciliation, equality, and inclusivity. This shows that new leadership can change both the identity and direction of a country by replacing the old system.

New Zealand's Jacinda Ardern is one of the most successful young female leaders in history, who managed to bring about significant change at a young age and leave a lasting impact. She became Prime Minister at the age of 37 and took bold and decisive steps during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ardern, who took leadership at a relatively young age, presented a new perspective based on empathy, inclusivity, and decisive action. During the COVID-19 pandemic, she made the bold decision to impose a strict lockdown early on, which could have had economic consequences.

Although this decision was risky, it helped control the initial impact of the pandemic. This shows that a risk taken thoughtfully can yield positive results. There are limits to caution as well. Excessive delay can lead to missed opportunities. For example, in the early stages of COVID-19, some democratic countries delayed taking strict measures, which helped the infection spread. This shows that experience can sometimes delay necessary decisions in new situations.

France's Emmanuel Macron became President at 39, challenging the traditional party system. Macron also came to power with a reformist agenda, challenging the traditional political structure. The steps he took for economic reform were fraught with political risks. But the 'Yellow Vest Movement' showed that rapid reforms carried out without sufficient public participation and sensitivity can incite public anger. This also taught that public sentiment, dialogue, and inclusivity are extremely necessary when taking risks.

Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel is another example of an experienced leader. Her leadership style was pragmatic and based on methodical analysis. Although some criticized her cautious economic policy during the Eurozone crisis as overly prudent, it helped maintain the stability of the European Union. Her decision-making process reflected long-term thinking and a deep understanding of interdependencies.

Following the global financial crisis of 2008, the US under Barack Obama's leadership implemented large bank bailout and economic stimulus programs. These decisions were risky because they had the potential to increase government debt and cause political controversy. But doing nothing risked a much larger economic collapse. Therefore, the leadership took calculated risks and bold steps, which ultimately helped stabilize the economy and showed that balanced yet decisive action is necessary during a crisis. The conflict between risk and caution is also clearly visible in economics. In the economic crisis, the US introduced a large economic stimulus package. This involved risk, but it helped stabilize the economy. This shows that sometimes bold decisions are necessary to avert a major crisis.

The leadership change in Malaysia involving Mahathir Mohamad and Anwar Ibrahim is noteworthy. Ibrahim has put forward a reform agenda challenging the long-entrenched corrupt political structure. With new energy and commitment to reform, he has emphasized transparency, good governance, and corruption control. Malaysia's current leaders have faced corruption challenges.

Mahathir Mohamad initiated reforms against corruption. However, some of his colleagues, like Najib Razak, were at the center of a major scandal, resulting in him serving a sentence for abuse of power and money laundering. Ibrahim took office with an anti-corruption agenda—focused on transparency, institutional reform, and accountability—although critics say progress has been gradual. Currently, Malaysia is striving to strengthen governance transparency and accountability while resolving past scandals.

Lee Kuan Yew entered politics at the age of 20. As Singapore's first Prime Minister, he took office at the age of 35. He is renowned as the person who transformed Singapore from a small, struggling colony into a prosperous global city-state. He was famous for taking risky and bold decisions, such as implementing strict anti-corruption measures, adopting multi-ethnic policies, and prioritizing long-term stability over short-term popularity through strategic economic reforms.

While Lee Kuan Yew's leadership brought stability and effectiveness to governance, Singapore was more authoritarian than fully democratic by democratic standards due to limitations on political and press freedom. Nevertheless, his pragmatic leadership made Singapore a stable, organized, and globally respected nation.

Strategic Leadership

Revolutionary and strategic leadership are interrelated. Ho Chi Minh is a suitable example in this context. He became involved in politics at the age of 29, advocating for Vietnam's independence. He played a decisive role in establishing Vietnam's independence and unity. He never shied away from making bold and risky decisions in the long struggle against foreign imperialist powers.

Ho Chi Minh was capable of making the right decisions with strategic thinking, patience, and foresight even in difficult situations. His decisions and leadership helped Vietnam gain independence from France and later from the US in their struggles. Ho Chi Minh is still well-known today as a skilled leader capable of taking risks and making judicious decisions.

Mao Zedong became involved in politics at the age of 24 through student movements and early communist activities. He made significant contributions to the war against imperialism, especially during the Second Sino-Japanese War. Mao led the Communist army, organized rural peasants, and adopted guerrilla warfare against the invading Japanese empire.

Mao's complex strategic decision was to adopt a dual policy: forming a united front with the nationalist forces to fight against Japan on one hand, and expanding his political and military influence on the other. This enabled him to consolidate his power alongside the war.

The Government of Nepal also faces the challenge of choosing a path to ensure democracy and sustainable development through youth leadership. Prime Minister Balen can learn from the strengths and weaknesses of these global examples. If young leadership works with courage and a clear vision, it can challenge old corrupt practices and bring positive change to the system.

In conclusion, among the leaders mentioned in the article, two leaders are worth highlighting again: Olof Palme and Lee Kuan Yew. Both were distinguished as transformative leaders in their respective countries. Palme emphasized social democracy, equality, and international solidarity. He valued both political freedom and social development. On the other hand, Lee Kuan Yew transformed Singapore into a prosperous nation through bold economic reforms and strict legal provisions. His leadership can be described as more authoritarian than fully democratic by Western standards. Palme became a symbol of the balance between democracy and development, while Lee Kuan Yew appears to have prioritized development over full democracy.

The Government of Nepal also faces the challenge of choosing a path to ensure democracy and sustainable development through youth leadership. Prime Minister Balen can learn from the strengths and weaknesses of these global examples. If young leadership works with courage and a clear vision, it can challenge old corrupt practices and bring positive change to the system. In a democracy, leadership is not just individual; it is influenced by institutions, public opinion, and opposition forces. Therefore, when taking risks, public sentiment and feedback must also be considered. Transparency and accountability are important aspects of risk management. The most effective leaders are those who see risk and caution not as competitors but as complements, where decisions are evidence-based, value-guided, and amendable when necessary.

This requires humility, adaptability, and collaboration. No leader, young or old, is perfect. The ability to change decisions according to the situation and the quality of dialogue with various parties make leadership effective. The combination of experience and new energy is particularly effective. Experienced leaders provide long-term vision, while young leaders bring new thinking and the energy for change.

The collaboration of both makes strong governance possible. The question is not whether to take risks or not, but how to take them. Legitimacy in a democracy is based on public trust, making risk management even more crucial. Excessive risk can lead to failure, while excessive caution can lead to missed opportunities.

A democratic society needs leaders who are courageous but also exercise wisdom. Effective leadership is not determined by age or experience alone. It is a combination of courage and intelligence. It is necessary to rely on balanced leadership to make judicious decisions that control the possibilities and potential risks of a democratic future.

(Dr. Malla is a former professor at Uppsala University, Sweden.)