KATHMANDU, Aug 22: The ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) has begun preparations for the upcoming local-level elections. However, as the party’s Central Committee (CC) met at its Banasthali headquarters in Kathmandu to discuss election strategy, Prime Minister and RSP Senior Leader Balendra Shah (Balen) headed to Mustang via Pokhara.
Shah, who has made only occasional appearances at party meetings and the central office, left Kathmandu for Pokhara early Friday while the CC meeting was underway.
He spent Friday night at Annapurna Eco Village Resort in Astam, Machhapuchhre Rural Municipality-6 of Kaski. The Prime Minister’s full itinerary, however, has not been made public.
It remains unclear whether Shah skipped the meeting because he did not consider it important or because he had a prior commitment. The RSP has also remained silent on the matter.
His absence has once again raised questions about the relationship between the party and its prime minister. It has also fueled speculation that ties between RSP President Rabi Lamichhane and Shah may be under strain.
More significantly, Shah’s absence from a CC meeting convened to discuss key issues, including preparations for the local-level elections, has revived a question increasingly being asked within the party: Does the RSP need Balen, or does Balen need the RSP?
Some RSP leaders have long accused Shah of lacking faith in the party system itself. According to them, his conduct since joining the party has only reinforced that perception.
The RSP had projected Shah as its candidate for prime minister even before the March 5 House of Representatives (HoR) election. Shah joined the party only days before the polls. Since then, his appearances at the party’s central office have remained infrequent.
Under a pre-election understanding, Shah is now serving as the country’s executive head.
The RSP secured nearly a two-thirds majority in the election. Within the party, however, there is disagreement over who deserves credit for that sweeping mandate.
RSP hatching strategy to end Balen’s politics from Jhapa: UML J...
Leaders close to Lamichhane argue that the party and its president were primarily responsible for the electoral victory. Shah’s supporters reject that claim.
They argue that Lamichhane had already lost public credibility due to controversies, including the cooperative scandal, while Shah’s tenure as mayor of Kathmandu Metropolitan City had generated hope and public trust.
According to Shah’s supporters, voters disillusioned with traditional political parties backed the RSP largely because of Shah’s clean image and popularity.
What began as a debate over electoral credit has evolved into a broader struggle for influence within the party. Barely six months into the government’s tenure, signs of an internal power struggle are becoming increasingly visible.
Since becoming prime minister, Shah has kept a noticeable distance not only from the party and its parliamentary wing but also from Parliament itself.
His limited participation in parliamentary proceedings, party meetings and parliamentary party meetings has raised concerns among critics about his commitment to Nepal’s parliamentary system and strengthened the arguments of those skeptical of his political approach.
The debate has now reportedly extended to whether Shah should continue as prime minister.
A recent meeting of the RSP parliamentary party—which Shah, as parliamentary party leader, would normally convene—was instead called by party President Lamichhane, who also issued directives to ministers and lawmakers.
Shah did not attend that meeting either.
Instead, lawmakers close to Lamichhane voiced dissatisfaction with the government’s performance.
Only days earlier, Shah himself had written on social media that he had been left alone.
While Lamichhane publicly defended Shah, some party leaders claim calls for an alternative prime minister are growing louder within the RSP.
One leader close to Lamichhane pointed to the party statute, which allows the party president to remove the parliamentary party leader, and said, “If he wants to remove him, the parliamentary party leader can be changed and a new government can be formed.”
Can Shah Be Removed as Prime Minister?
Shah was appointed prime minister under Article 76(1) of the Constitution, which states that the leader of the parliamentary party commanding a majority in the House of Representatives shall be appointed prime minister.
President Ram Chandra Paudel appointed Shah to the post on March 27 under this provision.
The Constitution outlines several circumstances under which a prime minister can leave office under Articles 77 and 100.
Article 77(1) states that a prime minister ceases to hold office if they resign in writing to the president, fail to secure a vote of confidence, lose a no-confidence motion under Article 100, cease to be a member of the HoR, or die.
Article 100 governs votes of confidence and no-confidence motions.
Under Article 100(1), a prime minister may seek a vote of confidence whenever deemed necessary.
Article 100(2) requires the prime minister to obtain a vote of confidence within 30 days if the party represented by the prime minister splits or if a coalition partner withdraws support.
Failure to secure a majority of the total members of the House results in the loss of office.
Article 100(4) allows one-fourth of the existing members of the House to register a no-confidence motion against the prime minister. However, such a motion cannot be filed during the first two years of a prime minister’s tenure or within one year of a failed no-confidence motion.
Under these provisions, a no-confidence motion against Shah does not appear possible at present. Nor would he necessarily be required to seek a vote of confidence unless the RSP were to split.
This is where the constitutional debate becomes more complex.
The Constitution requires a person to be the parliamentary party leader to be appointed prime minister under Article 76(1). Leaders close to Lamichhane argue that removing Shah as parliamentary party leader would automatically vacate the office of prime minister.
Shah’s supporters, however, contend that being parliamentary party leader was only a prerequisite for his appointment and that removing him from the party leadership would not automatically end his tenure as prime minister.
As tensions within the RSP deepen, differing interpretations of Article 76(1) could emerge as the next major constitutional battleground.
