Nepali Congress Leader Poudel Accuses PM Balen Shah of Deliberately Ignoring Parliament

Kathmandu. Nepali Congress General Secretary Pradip Poudel has accused Prime Minister Balen Shah of deliberately ignoring the parliament. Speaking at the general assembly of the Democratic Ideological Society, Nepal, he claimed that the Prime Minister's style of work was not due to immaturity but was intentional. Emphasizing that the Prime Minister should be accountable to the parliament, he stated that the current government's activities have increased the risk to the democratic system and constitutional system itself. He said that the government, formed with great public trust, is coming under scrutiny in a short time, which could increase public disappointment and develop dangerous thoughts of system change. General Secretary Poudel also accused the government of excessive centralization of power. He said that bodies like Revenue Investigation, Anti-Money Laundering, and Special Investigation have been centered around the Prime Minister. Similarly, he claimed that the Constitutional Council has been structured in such a way that 3 out of 6 members can form a majority, a practice he described as rare worldwide. He pointed out that the Prime Minister is dominated by the psychology of 'I am everything', and such a tendency poses a threat of devouring democracy itself. He stated that if the government is not kept within its limits in time, democratic values and systems could face a serious crisis, and a state with a weakened democratic character would inflict suffering on its citizens. Mentioning that the Nepali Congress is currently in the opposition, Poudel made it clear that they will continuously question the government to protect democracy and the parliamentary system. He said that although they do not wish for the government to fail, the opposition cannot remain silent against any attempt to weaken democracy. He asserted that the Congress party will not shy away from protecting democratic values and procedures. Addressing the assembly, he said, 'A government has been formed with immense trust at this time. We are the proponents of the system. Those who did nothing to establish the system, for which we fought, have come with the people's trust. This is the beauty of democracy. We have no disagreement or reservation about that. But our point at this time is that if a government formed with such great public trust starts getting surrounded by questions so quickly, public disappointment will increase further. We feel that the risk of citizens becoming extremely disappointed and thinking that there is no alternative within the system is increasing. Therefore, sitting on the opposition bench, we do not want the government to fail. The election was recently, we lost. Another election will come. We are the proponents of a system where elections come periodically. Therefore, will the government become limited by questions in such a way that public opinion turns against the system itself? What is happening now is not because the Prime Minister does not know, not because of his immaturity, but it is happening intentionally. He has deliberately ignored the parliament. Therefore, is it permissible to ignore the parliament in this manner within the parliamentary system? Has the constitution not made the Prime Minister accountable? Is it permissible not to fulfill that accountability? Is it permissible to create situations where many questions arise? Therefore, this is not happening out of ignorance, it is happening intentionally. Those who opposed the Prime Minister until yesterday, saying there is revenue investigation, money laundering, special investigation, how powerful have they made the Prime Minister today? Today, all decisions are being made centered around the Prime Minister. They have even created a situation where 3 out of 6 members can form a majority. This does not happen anywhere in the world. Therefore, the way work is being done against universally accepted norms, has it not increased the risk to Nepal's system? Has it not increased the risk to the democratic system? It has raised questions and suspicions.' He further clarified the role of the opposition, saying, 'At this time, we, the Nepali Congress party, did not want to raise questions so quickly. But we are also asked, where is the opposition? Within the parliamentary system, there are two sides. One is the ruling party, the other is the opposition. Now, we are not in a position to play the role of the ruling party. We are currently in the role of the opposition. The role of the opposition is clearly defined, we are not without a role today. The role has changed. We must be mentally prepared to perform according to the change. We must enhance our capabilities to effectively perform the role of the opposition. Therefore, while performing the role of the opposition, democrats have started asking us, where are you? What are you doing? Therefore, the government has created a situation where many questions need to be asked. On this basis, we must be able to create a situation to surround the government with these questions. Our role alone is not enough for that. The role of all democrats must be involved in this. If the psychology of 'Who will oppose me if I do it? I am everything' continues to grow, then the one who considers himself everything will devour democracy. Therefore, we must be able to signal in time that 'You are not everything. You are also within limits. If you do good work, you will receive support, if you do bad work, the support given to you may be withdrawn.' We must be able to act on that basis. The government is in power itself and is also trying to be in the opposition by manipulating with multiple IDs. We must be able to expose the way the government is trying to create confusion by constantly presenting falsehoods as truth. This is our shared responsibility. If the character of the state is not democratic, the state will cause a lot of suffering to its citizens. The state will not be in favor of the citizens, the state will not treat them equally, the state will not be able to establish the rule of law. Many arguments have now been made that the character of the current government cannot be considered democratic. Therefore, when we feel that the character of the state has changed, we cannot accept it. This is the democratic character country we wanted to build. The Congress was born for that.'