Opposition’s Move to Urge President to Block Ordinances Faces Criticism

The government has adopted a practice of ruling through ordinances by suspending the House of Representatives session, and President Ram Chandra Paudel has already promulgated three ordinances. Opposition parties have urged the president to block these ordinances, but the constitution does not grant the president such authority, and this move is considered detrimental to democracy. According to political scientists, the opposition can keep democracy alive only through constructive dissent and presenting alternative policies, which requires dialogue and moral strength.

Kathmandu, April 30 – The government has chosen to end the House session early and rely heavily on ordinances. Although this is not unprecedented in Nepal’s parliamentary practice and the constitution does not always consider ordinance issuance unconstitutional, President Ram Chandra Paudel had promulgated three ordinances by Friday evening and reportedly is consulting on holding back five others. Public discourse has criticized the government’s approach of governing through a cascade of ordinances.

The sudden suspension of the session called for April 16 and the recourse to ordinances within 24 hours raise significant doubts about the government’s democratic culture and intent. Furthermore, following the Jana Andolan movement, citizens questioning the repetition of old habits and practices is not unexpected. The government’s failure to communicate clearly and effectively with citizens regarding the necessity and objectives of issuing ordinances has fueled louder opposition voices. Citizens must scrutinize this parliamentary bypass practice, which risks eroding the system’s credibility as it has in the past.

However, the opposition, which itself has previously issued ordinances, now calls the government’s ordinance issuance unconstitutional and has gone further by urging the president to block them without hesitation. In a statement after a Wednesday meeting, opposition parties said, “We earnestly request the honorable president not to approve the ordinances recommended to him as they have been forwarded with the intention of bypassing Parliament.”

It must be clear—urging the president to block ordinances is more harmful to democracy than the ruling party’s decision to suspend Parliament and govern via ordinances. This attitude of the numerically weaker opposition only weakens it further instead of correcting the powerful government. In such a context, the opposition must possess moral authority to hold the government accountable since it lacks numerical strength. That moral authority comes from addressing past weaknesses, maintaining internal party democracy, and raising correct and principled questions. Constitutionally, the president does not have the power to block ordinances.

Democracy is a system of values, and the opposition’s request to the president crosses these fundamental boundaries. Notably, this appeal was made under the leadership of Bhismraj Angdembe, the leader of the parliamentary party selected by Gagan Thapa and Bishwaprakash Sharma in the changed Congress office.