Parliament is a place where the country’s most pressing issues are debated and laws are carefully passed. The decisions made here reflect the people’s will. Recently, Parliament, one of the pillars of our democracy and governance system, seemed more like a scene of obstruction than a place for policy making. The ongoing monsoon session has demonstrated how both political parties and some bureaucrats have undermined its credibility.
Opposition parties, mainly the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) and Rastriya Prajatantra Party( RPP), have opted for boycotts and theatrical protests instead of asking informed questions or suggesting real alternatives to the decisions made by the ruling parties. Instead of productive discussions, some lawmakers have turned to shouting and physical disruptions as part of their protests. Opposition lawmakers surround the podium and well, stage symbolic protests or walk out entirely. The RSP and RPP, both with young, energetic members, aim towards disruption of House proceedings, not solving problems. The same is true about the Nepali Congress, CPN-UML and the Maoist Centre. Whenever these parties are in opposition, they resort to the same tactic, which only berates the dignity of Parliament. These acts are good for grabbing headlines but leave the important tasks unfinished. If such conduct becomes the norm, it sends a message to the public that lawmakers care more about themselves than the real solutions.
End of Budget Session: Will the ‘mini parliaments’ be active?
Also, the recent issue with the Civil Service Bill is another episode that has turned parliamentary proceedings into a farcical affair. Lawmakers labored for nearly a year to prepare this bill, carefully adding a “cooling-off period” to tackle conflict of interest among our bureaucrats. After the parliamentary panel – the State Affairs Committee – approved it, the clause mentioning the cooling-off period mysteriously disappeared from the final bill ready to be tabled in the House. This wasn’t just a clerical error, but was a deliberate act, reportedly ordered from the highest level of bureaucracy, including the chief secretary. A parliamentary investigation committee took weeks to produce a report, which turned out to be incomplete because it failed to pinpoint the actual culprit who tampered with the clause.
Members of the probe committee, especially those from the ruling coalition, faced accusations of easing their probe report to protect the powerful who were suspected perpetrators. Instead of naming those responsible, the final report vaguely mentioned “high officials.” The probe body, it appeared, was formed not to find the truth but to shield the powerful who had their hands in tampering with the cooling-off period. The chair of the State Affairs Committee admitted he neglected his duty, yet faced no repercussions. It is hard to view as mere negligence, especially since both Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba were reportedly unhappy about including the cooling-off clause from the start.
This has indeed sent a dangerous message: a provision that politicians approved can be removed by bureaucrats before reaching the sovereign House. Even if the culprits are caught, the worst that happens to them is a mild public reprimand. This undermines more than just one bill. It implies that Parliament’s authority can be overlooked when it clashes with the interests of political or bureaucratic elites. If this continues, the legislative process will not belong to elected representatives but to unelected officials who respond only to their political masters, much to the dismay of those who believe in parliament’s superiority in our system of governance.
This kind of manipulation damages trust in future law-making efforts thus making Parliament toothless. Meanwhile, lawmakers discussing another sensitive bill about land are already cautious of vague wording and phrases in the vital bill. They worry they may face the same kind of sabotage that their peers faced in the Civil Service Bill. This fear can lead to the stall of the legislation process, as it creates a sense that no matter how much work is done in parliamentary committees, the final version could be changed without their knowledge or approval.
Truly, if lawmakers cannot uphold the integrity of the bills they approve, the public perception might change regarding Parliament. They perceive it as a ceremonial body rather than a true center of legislative power. Without both political will and bureaucratic restraint, Parliament risks becoming a puppet and the fundamental idea of legislative power, such as representative law-making loses its significance. The monsoon session has made one thing clear: without a concerted effort from all concerned to improve the situation, Parliament’s authority will continue to be undermined.
