Balen Shah's Rise Exposes Traditional Parties' Ideological Crisis

Balendra (Balen) Shah, who emerged in politics as an independent candidate, is currently affiliated with the Rastriya Swatantra Party. With strong public support, he is currently the Prime Minister. He wants to gain applause by performing stunts. He wants to become the second Jang Bahadur.

In an effort to immediately satisfy public sentiment, he not only challenged the traditional parties but also forced them to redefine their roles. In such a context, the role of the Nepali Congress, Nepal's old and institutionally strong party, and how it will proceed now is a very important question.

The Nepali Congress is a party that has carried the legacy of the democratic movement for a long time. Its politics is based on culture, process, institutionalization, and long-term policy making. But Balen Shah's style is the exact opposite, based on quick decisions, direct intervention, and public relations through social media. For this reason, it has put Congress between two options.

One, to embrace change by collaborating with new leadership. Second, to protect its own traditional politics by criticizing it. In reality, Congress could not formulate a clear and consistent strategy between these two. As a result, a mixed situation of support in some places, criticism in others, and silence was observed.

Some of Balen Shah's actions, such as the campaign to remove illegal structures, protection of public spaces, or administrative strictness, were liked by some, while others became victims. But these steps can sometimes risk clashing with legal processes, human rights, or long-term policies. It is in this area that the role of the Nepali Congress should have been important.

As a responsible opposition, Congress could have raised these questions: Are all actions legal? Are decisions transparent and accountable? Do they provide long-term solutions or just temporary satisfaction? But in practice, Congress could not fully fulfill the role of such an intellectual and institutional opposition. Although there was criticism, it was mostly reactive and disorganized.

Balen Shah's style of governance can be called a 'stunt government', where decisions are made to provide immediate public satisfaction. Such politics carries the risk of weakening long-term institutional processes. The Nepali Congress could have challenged this ideologically.

But the problem is that Congress itself sometimes came under pressure from this very style. Fearing a loss of popularity on social media, Congress leaders hesitated to offer clear ideological opposition. This has made Congress neither a full supporter nor an effective critic. Rather, it is keeping it in a state of 'confused spectator'.

There is an ideological crisis and lack of leadership. The organization is in legal and ethical entanglement. The rise of Balen Shah has not only shown the popularity of an individual but has also exposed the ideological crisis of traditional parties. Congress's problem is not just organizational, but also ideological.

Congress to be opposition, ally, or silent? This answer will determine Nepal's democratic future

Is Congress still the carrier of change? Or is it just a protector of the 'status quo'? When new leadership starts addressing public expectations quickly, old parties must clarify their ideological stance. Congress has appeared weak in this regard.

At this time, the long-term balance of democracy is disturbed. Democracy is not just a game of popular decisions; it is a balance of process, institutionalization, and accountability. While the question of whether Balen Shah's style has added energy to democracy is being raised, the role of traditional parties is essential to balance it.

The Nepali Congress could have played the role of a democratic guardian here – maintaining a balance between popularity and process, protecting institutional values, and emphasizing long-term policy making. But Congress could not clearly demonstrate this role.

Although Congress appears not to have formulated a clear strategy initially, the opportunity has not yet ended. Congress can adopt the following measures. First, strengthen institutional reform by collaborating with Balen Shah. Second, provide fact-based and constructive criticism where necessary. Third, re-establish its ideological clarity.

This can transform Congress from a merely reactive party into a 'proactive' democratic force. The rise of Balendra Shah has started a new chapter in Nepali politics, where personality, technology, and public sentiment are paramount.

In such times, the role of the Nepali Congress becomes even more important. But so far, Congress has neither fully fulfilled the responsibility of the opposition nor utilized the opportunity for collaboration. If Congress wants to regain its historical role as a protector of democracy and a carrier of change, it must demonstrate a clear strategy, ideological firmness, and active participation.

Otherwise, there is a risk that the rise of new leadership will gradually make it irrelevant.

Ultimately, the question is not just about Balen Shah; the question is how an old political party like the Nepali Congress will reinvent itself with the politics of the new era. This answer will determine Nepal's democratic future.