Young activists in Nepal disappointed with rapper prime minister: “This government is worse than the previous one”

Balendra “Balen” Shah became Nepal’s prime minister after the Rastriya Swatatantra Party won the March parliamentary election. He is 36, a former rap artist and former mayor of Kathmandu. His rise connected politics with the hopes of young people who had led major anti-corruption protests the previous September.

Young Nepalis expected Shah to challenge the old political system because his party campaigned on fighting corruption. The protests had already forced the previous government to resign. Shah also had a reputation for trying to act decisively as Kathmandu’s mayor, including efforts to remove unauthorized riverside buildings.

Those expectations have weakened. Activists Jasmine Ojha and Riyab Baniya say the government is returning to old patterns, including nepotism, and is not listening to young people. Commentator Binod Bhattarai says Shah has improved some public services, but the government has not yet shown convincing plans or action against suspected corruption.

Nepal’s Gen Z protests were large demonstrations against corruption. They took place last September and led to the resignation of Nepal’s government. Young activists became central figures in the movement, which represented widespread frustration with how the country was governed.

The article specifically links the protesters’ demands to ending corruption. Activists now also call for transparent government and attention to people outside the elite. Jasmine Ojha says authorities must consider poor people, minorities, and lower-caste communities. Riyab Baniya says the government should listen to young activists and stop nepotism.

The movement changed Nepal’s political landscape. In the March parliamentary election, the Rastriya Swatatantra Party won after campaigning against corruption, and Shah became prime minister. However, the activists say the new government has not met their expectations. They warn that further protests could follow if broader public concerns remain ignored.

Activists are disappointed because Shah’s government promised to fight corruption but, in their view, is behaving like the previous government. They say it does not listen to young people or wider society. Their criticism matters because the new government came to power after protests forced the former government to resign.

One major example is Shah’s order to remove people living in unauthorized riverside buildings in Kathmandu. The residents were moved to temporary shelters, but the eviction order did not follow the legal process. Activists also cite nepotism and say the government uses social media to attack opponents. Suspected corruption arrests have not led to charges.

The government has made some administrative services faster, including driving licences and identity documents. Yet commentators say ministers communicate poorly and the prime minister mainly explains his views through Facebook. Activists warn they are ready to protest again if the government remains opaque and ignores poorer and marginalized groups.

The late-August flash flood was a catastrophe for Nepal. Authorities confirmed that more than 1,400 people had died, and about 5,000 people were still missing. The scale of the disaster made the government’s response a major test of its ability to act during a national emergency.

Prime Minister Shah established a flood-relief fund, and it received many donations. Those donations matter politically because they suggest that people still trust the government enough to support an official relief effort. Political commentator Binod Bhattarai identifies this public response as an advantage for Shah.

The disaster does not erase the activists’ criticism. Ojha and Baniya still say the government lacks transparency and does not listen to society. The flood therefore produced two different signals: deep human loss and a continuing need for government action, alongside evidence that public confidence has not completely disappeared.

The rule of law means that everyone, including government leaders, must act under established laws and procedures. It protects people from arbitrary decisions and requires authorities to justify the use of state power. This principle matters because elections alone do not guarantee fair government.

The article gives a concrete example in Kathmandu. Shah ordered security forces to remove people living in unauthorized riverside buildings and move them into temporary shelters. Jasmine Ojha says the order was contrary to the legal process, and experts described the action as inhumane. The issue is not only the relocation itself, but the way officials carried it out.

When authorities skip required procedures, affected people may lose opportunities to challenge a decision or defend their rights. It can also weaken public trust and encourage further abuses of power. Ojha warns that the government must understand the rule of law or Nepal could move into an even worse situation.

When suspects are arrested but prosecutors do not file charges, the case does not formally proceed to prosecution. An arrest may begin an investigation, but it is not a conviction or proof of guilt. Prosecutors generally need to present a legal case before a court can assess the evidence.

The article says Shah’s government has arrested politicians and businesspeople suspected of corruption. However, the former politicians who were detained have not yet been charged. This means the arrests have not produced a court case or a clear legal outcome. The public therefore cannot see whether the allegations are supported by evidence.

That gap weakens the government’s anti-corruption message. Binod Bhattarai says people want to see real plans and action, not only arrests. If cases remain without charges, critics can view the arrests as political theatre or ineffective enforcement. The government would need transparent investigations and lawful prosecutions to demonstrate that its promises are producing results.

Transparency lets citizens see what a government is doing and why. Independent media can question officials and investigate claims. Civil society gives communities ways to organize and raise concerns. Together, these safeguards help voters judge whether promises are being kept and whether public power is being used lawfully.

The article shows why these protections matter in Nepal. Binod Bhattarai says ministers do not answer journalists’ questions, so people cannot properly evaluate government actions. He also says Shah has not given media interviews as prime minister and mainly communicates through Facebook. Riyab Baniya alleges that government supporters use fake social-media accounts to target critics.

If these checks weaken, the government can avoid scrutiny and marginalized groups may be ignored. Jasmine Ojha says the administration listens mainly to elites, not poor people, minorities, or lower castes. Protecting open debate and civic activity would make it harder to hide failures and easier to correct harmful decisions before public frustration leads to new protests.