[Part 2: From Administrative Order to Democratic Balance]
Why reform momentum must be anchored in institutional discipline and democratic legitimacy. Not all bottlenecks are created equal!

Preamble: Intent and the Question of Proces

“विद्यार्थीले राजनीति सिक्दा गुरूबाट सिकून्, नेताको भीडबाट होइन। कर्मचारीले विधि खोजून्, नेताको छहारी होइन।” — PM Balen Shah (Setopati)

The intent here is clear and, in many ways, commendable—a shift away from party patronage toward rule-based, impersonal governance. Well-intentioned as it is, such a shift must also align with institutional discipline and democratic processes.

Take, for example, the issue of unions. The question is not whether politicization should end—it should, especially in the education and bureaucratic sectors. The challenge is not in diagnosing the harms of politicization, but in ensuring that corrective measures remain consistent with constitutional rights and institutional processes.

Taking this as an example, this essay explores other facets to shed light on the balance between the speed of reform and institutional integrity, including the protection of citizens’ rights.

Early Signals: Speed, Scale, and Mixed Methods

With 30+ days under its belt, the new government has made a few swift moves that seem indicative of its modus operandi moving forward—toward a rule-based governance mechanism, an impersonal way of doing business. At the same time, the mass removal of appointments—roughly 1,600 in all—reveals another side of the reform package: a more personnel-centered approach, seemingly in contrast to process-based rules. Adding to this a slew of ordinances creates a degree of confusion.

The emphasis on high-speed efficiency as an operational goal by this energetic—and at times impatient—group of policymakers is refreshing. Yet, two cautionary fault lines may lie ahead. First, efficiency achieved in administrative order may not carry over to political discourse and deliberation. Second, removing personnel swiftly and en masse will not necessarily achieve the desired behavioral change if process-focused reforms are bypassed.

This essay attempts to offer a few cautionary reflections for the new government, intended as constructive feedback.

But let me share a story from my graduate days at the University of Colorado, Boulder.

A Story on Speed: Administrative Efficiency in Practice

As a graduate student at the University of Colorado Boulder, I spent a summer as an intern at the state Capitol, commuting from Boulder to Denver along the turnpike connecting the two cities. One Friday evening, news broke of a critical bridge failure—reportedly triggered by a rail collision and subsequent fire—that rendered a vital stretch unusable.

By Monday morning, however, the story had completely shifted.

Television news showed a newly paved, roughly five-kilometer bypass road built around the damaged bridge—ready to take commuters. Land permissions, contractor mobilization, and construction had all been completed within 36 hours. It was a striking example of administrative efficiency at its finest. The public response, especially across Colorado, was one of admiration and relief.

Yet, this same American public has often reacted very differently when similar speed is applied in the political domain. On several occasions, when legislative majorities have pushed through bills with minimal debate or deliberation, the response has been sharp and critical. The familiar justification in such moments is urgency—that the public cannot wait.

This contrast is telling.

This essay attempts to discern the idea of efficiency across these two domains—administrative execution and political deliberation—perhaps offering a subtle lesson for Balen and his technocratic young team.

Nepal’s Early Phase: Order, Action, and Momentum

Just 30+ days in, Prime Minister Balen Shah has shown a remarkable instinct to bring about a sense of order in bureaucratic functioning. After years of drift, the visible push toward discipline—fixed hours, movement of files, time-bound service delivery—has been both noticeable and, in many ways, welcome. There are early signs of corrective feedback as well, including the departure of a Home Minister amid questions over financial ties. The removal of middlemen from government premises has been widely praised.

Then came the clearance and bulldozing of thousands of riverside squatter settlements, carried out with a two-day notice—many reportedly occupied by land mafias, the government claims. At the same time, it has asserted that genuine landless families are being properly resettled. The speed and scale of these actions are unprecedented.

Speed and efficiency now seem to define the early character of this new government.

With roughly 60 days still left in what may be considered a honeymoon period, a quick assessment is in order—especially given the murmurs beginning to surface across social media. Some of these reactions carry an ominous tone, particularly in light of the seven ordinances advanced, and now approved, in the name of efficiency.

Is there something deeper at play, or is this simply partisan overreaction?

Framing the Question: A Systems Lens

I will try to frame this through a systems lens, often associated with Eliyahu Goldratt’s idea—the Theory of Constraints—that not all “bottlenecks” are meant to be removed or bypassed; some define how a system holds together.

This essay offers a cautionary note: in a factory or bureaucracy, removing the bottleneck increases output or service delivery. In a democracy, removing the wrong bottleneck can weaken the system itself.

From Administrative Order to Political Judgment

In Part 1, I applauded Balen for removing bottlenecks in the administrative system to enhance efficiency. That instinct was not only correct—it was necessary.

But the danger he will face is subtle.

It lies in expecting a similar level of efficiency in political expediency.

When Bottlenecks Differ by Design

Bureaucratic order and efficiency can indeed be understood, designed, and enforced. In such systems, bottlenecks are inefficiencies—they delay outcomes, distort incentives, and invite rent-seeking. Removing them improves performance.

Political systems, however, operate differently.

Democracy, by its nature, is a messy affair—not a perfectly ordered system, as Winston Churchill famously reminded us, except that no better alternative has yet emerged.

To expect an aura of efficiency in political affairs—particularly in legislative deliberation—is therefore misleading. In fact, many well-functioning democracies operate precisely on this contrast: an orderly and disciplined administrative system, alongside a political process that is often slow, negotiated, and at times even appears chaotic.

That “inefficiency” is not a flaw. It is a feature.

Political bottlenecks are not always problems to be solved. They are often safeguards—deliberation, checks, consultation, and layered approval—that prevent concentration of power and protect legitimacy.

Treating both types of bottlenecks through the same lens is where the risk begins.

When Efficiency Crosses Into Politics

This is where the tension begins to show.

A CEO-style approach to governance may sound attractive—decisive, fast-moving, results-oriented. In bureaucratic systems, it can be highly effective. But extending that approach into political deliberation risks crossing a boundary that democratic systems depend upon.

Once legislative processes, parliamentary engagement, and institutional checks are seen as obstacles rather than as essential components, the system begins to shift—from rules toward discretion.

And that shift can lead to unintended consequences, regardless of the good intentions behind these initiatives.

What Political Thought Reminds Us

This concern has long been noted by political thinkers.

James Madison warned that good intentions are never enough; systems must be designed with constraints because power, if unchecked, tends to expand. What appears as delay in democratic systems is often the mechanism through which excess is contained.

John Locke emphasized that legitimacy does not come merely from outcomes, but from the process through which authority is exercised. When process is bypassed, even well-intended actions begin to lose their grounding.

And Friedrich Hayek cautioned against what he called the fatal conceit—the belief that those in power can design and execute outcomes efficiently enough to justify setting aside established rules. It is this belief that can gradually transform efficiency into overreach.

A Test Case in Real Time

The irony, of course, is that efforts to dismantle informal, relational governance—as discussed in my Part 1 essay—can unintentionally create a different form of concentration.

The deeper danger lies in the overcorrection impulse: to take what works in administration and extend it wholesale into politics.

One can already see how this tension might play out.

The current debate around ordinances offers a useful illustration—not to question intent, but to understand how perception and process begin to diverge. The issue, in many ways, is not the objective itself, but how the institutional landscape is being interpreted. When the upper house is seen primarily as a roadblock or bottleneck to be bypassed rather than a constraint to be managed, the response naturally shifts toward executive instruments such as ordinances. While this may enable movement in the short run, it risks reinforcing the perception that process is secondary.

For clarification: I have consistently maintained that the upper house, in its current form, has largely become a space for collusive electoral arithmetic among party bosses rather than a genuine institutional check within a liberal democracy. Unless it is transformed into a directly elected body with an independent public mandate, it risks remaining little more than a numerical game driven by backroom political calculations. In that broader context, such institutional dynamics inevitably shape the behavior and strategic calculations of governments, including the Balen administration. I am simply placing the issue within a structural and institutional context, not making a normative judgment about any particular actor.

Thus, a more balanced path would be to work the process visibly, even while moving forward. Granted, ordinances are a vital part of the democratic process, but the danger lies in using them as a default mode. This is offered as a caution to this “high-speed” team of technocrats entrusted with revamping the old system.

Extending the Efficiency Template: A Word of Caution

Another development drawing attention is the move to open ambassadorial appointments through public application and competition. What could be a welcome departure in some contexts—such as university vice chancellor appointments—may require a different calibration in diplomacy.

Ambassadorial roles are not purely administrative positions. They sit at the intersection of statecraft, negotiation, and political signaling. A more targeted approach—grounded in experience, domain knowledge, credibility, and followed by open hearings—may better serve the purpose than a purely open-call model.

The broader question this raises is whether a single efficiency template is being extended across domains that operate differently.

A Humble Message: Avoiding the Arrogance of Efficiency

The broader point is not to reject efficiency, but not to chase it at all costs.

Yes, efficiency in execution can strengthen governance. But relying too much on efficiency in politics, without limits, can distort it.

The caution is simple. The danger is not inefficiency, nor the desire to reform. It is the belief that efficiency alone can replace process. That belief—subtle, well-intentioned, and often convincing—is what many thinkers have warned can lead to the arrogance of efficiency.

Much of what we are seeing reflects a strong push through personnel-centered actions—removing, disciplining, and signaling change through visible moves, including the dismissal of roughly 1,600 personnel and a series of high-profile arrests. These have their place and can generate early momentum. Likewise, a swift series of ordinances to carry out these changes—particularly those involving personnel—may send mixed signals, even if well-intentioned, given their off-parliamentary character.

But durable reform ultimately rests on process-centered changes—rules, procedures, and institutional pathways that outlast individuals. The long-term test for this government will not be how effectively it reshuffles people, but how well it builds impersonal systems that make outcomes less dependent on who holds office.

The Moment of Opportunity—and Accountability

As of the writing of this essay, the hurdles appear to have been cleared for the new government, with the ordinances now in place as intended. The deck is set. The responsibility now shifts fully to delivery—there can be few excuses left for not doing so.

All eyes will remain on this government through the remainder of its honeymoon period. The opportunity is real, and so is the expectation. The task ahead is to match speed with substance—aligning intent, execution, and results—while remaining firmly within the corridor of the rule of law.

The mandate has opened the door; the method and the results will determine whether it remains open.

Good luck!

Dr. Alok K. Bohara, Emeritus Professor of Economics at the University of New Mexico, writes as an independent observer of Nepal’s democratic evolution through the lens of complexity and emergence science. His systems-policy essays on Nepal’s socio-economic and political landscape appear on Nepal Unplugged.