Spread the love

By Our Reporter

Ministerial posts appear to be losing their weight under the Sushila Karki led interim government. The government has already crossed three months of its six-month lifespan, yet ministers were inducted in bits and pieces, one or two at a time, across several rounds. Each round triggered fresh debate, speculation, and in some cases outright controversy. Some names surfaced only to disappear at the last moment, others were sworn in amid questions about suitability. This slow and uncertain process sent an early signal that ministerial appointments were being treated as adjustments rather than as serious political decisions.

The repeated inductions also exposed weak preparation. In a government with a short and clearly defined mandate, the priority should have been clarity and speed. Instead, the staggered appointments created the impression of improvisation. Several proposed ministers faced disputes linked to legal cases, past conduct, or public backlash, forcing the Prime Minister’s Office to retreat at the final stage. Each reversal chipped away at the stature of the post itself. When ministerial names circulate casually and collapse just as easily, the office begins to look provisional and negotiable.

The composition of the Cabinet added to this perception. Many ministers came from professional fields rather than established politics. In theory, this could have strengthened governance. In practice, it raised questions because minimum standards were not clearly enforced. Public credibility, ethical conduct, and a sense of political responsibility appeared secondary. Episodes involving individuals with controversial backgrounds suggested that vetting was shallow. When citizens see that even basic screening happens late, or not at all, confidence in the seriousness of ministerial office naturally erodes.

Well respected figures such as Dr Sanduk Ruit and Dr Bhagwan Koirala reportedly declined offers to join the Cabinet. Their refusal spoke louder than acceptance by others. It showed that people with long earned standing do not see value in a post that offers little time, little authority, and high reputational risk. At the same time, individuals who rose to attention through street slogans or social media noise appeared eager for ministerial roles. This gap between who declines and who pursues the post has altered how the public reads ministerial ambition.

Timing has further diluted value. Newly appointed ministers have around three months left. In that span, most of their energy will go into understanding ministry files, staff hierarchies, and procedures. There is little space for policy depth or lasting reform. The old analogy about learning where things are kept before real work begins fits this moment well. When the term ends before familiarity sets in, the post turns symbolic.

This does not mean the current ministers should be dismissed outright. Their core responsibility is clear. They must help deliver a free, fair, and credible election on March 5. In a period filled with uncertainty over courts, coalitions, and timelines, restraint matters more than expansion. If the government treats ministerial posts as tools for delivery rather than as titles to distribute, some trust can still be recovered. In the end, the value of these posts will be judged not by how many were appointed, but by whether the election mandate was honored.