Is Balen Slowly Centralizing Power in Nepal? Why Is Nobody Asking the Hard Questions?
Before people instantly label this “anti-Balen,” read the full argument carefully. This is not about defending old parties. Most of us supported Balen because we were tired of corruption, syndicates, endless bureaucracy, and political theatrics.
But democracy does not survive on popularity alone. It survives on institutions, transparency, accountability, and checks on power.
Balen came to power because people were tired of corrupt old parties. Fair enough. But democracy is not just about replacing old leaders with a popular new one.
Lately there’s a visible pattern:
- major decisions concentrated around the PM’s office,
- heavy reliance on ordinances and executive action,
- weak engagement with parliament,
- minimal direct press accountability,
- and governance increasingly driven through social media narratives rather than institutional debate.
Even supporters are starting to call him a “Super PM.”
That should concern people.
History shows democracies rarely collapse overnight. It usually starts when:
- people lose faith in old parties,
- a charismatic outsider rises,
- institutions weaken because “only he can fix it,”
- criticism becomes taboo,
- and power slowly centralizes around one individual.
Questioning Balen does not mean supporting Congress, UML, or Maoists.
It means asking whether Nepal is strengthening institutions — or replacing party dominance with personality dominance.
Because if the system becomes dependent on one man, what happens when the next leader is far worse?