Kathmandu: A major political controversy has erupted after the government postponed the parliament session and moved forward ordinances related to the Constitutional Council and the cooperative sector.

The decision, taken during a cabinet meeting on Monday, has drawn criticism from opposition parties as well as civil society. The government, despite holding a near two-thirds majority, chose to proceed through ordinances instead of using the parliamentary process.

While the government has defended the move as a routine legal mechanism, critics argue it undermines democratic norms. Leaders from the Nepali Congress have been particularly vocal.

Parliamentary party leader Bhishma Raj Angdembe described the step as “undemocratic” and an attack on parliamentary practice. General Secretary Pradeep Poudel called it a sign of mistrust in the government’s own lawmakers, while spokesperson Devraj Chalise warned of growing centralization of power.

Concerns have also been raised by other political forces. Shankar Pokharel questioned the need to bypass parliament, saying it sends the wrong message to the public. Similarly, leaders from the Nepal Communist Party and the Rastriya Prajatantra Party criticized the move as undemocratic and harmful to institutional processes.

The silence of Rastriya Swayamsevak Sangh and its leader Rabi Lamichhane—who had previously opposed ordinance-based governance—has further intensified debate in political circles.

Civil society has also reacted strongly. Representatives of the Gen-G movement have urged Ram Chandra Poudel to reject the ordinances, warning that such steps weaken the principle of separation of powers.

Deeper Democratic Concerns
Observers say the controversy goes beyond a procedural issue. In Nepal, ordinances have often been contentious, but the current situation is seen as more serious because the government has both a clear majority and the capacity to pass laws through parliament.

Critics argue that bypassing parliament in such a context raises questions about intent—whether it reflects a preference for “easy governance” or a lack of trust in institutional processes. The fact that sensitive areas like the Constitutional Council and cooperatives are being addressed through ordinances has added to these concerns.

The episode has triggered a broader debate about democratic practice in Nepal. Many see it as a test of whether the country’s “new political leadership” will follow transparent, parliamentary norms or repeat patterns of centralized decision-making.

Ultimately, the issue has evolved into a larger question about the health of Nepal’s democracy: if governments continue to sidestep parliament despite having the numbers to govern through it, the credibility of democratic institutions could be at risk.