Prime Minister Balendra Shah was expected to call an all-party meeting following the deadly flash floods in Rasuwa. He did not. Instead, Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) Chair Rabi Lamichhane took the initiative and called an all-party meeting to discuss the disaster.
Lamichhane has similarly taken the lead in political consultations over the floods, holding discussions with the Bagmati chief minister and heads of local governments. The prime minister, meanwhile, has not met senior political leaders on the issue. This is not an isolated instance.
Earlier,following deadly communal violence in Sunsari and other parts of the country. It was Lamichhane—not Shah—who organized an all-party meeting. Shah, by contrast, held discussions with some Madhes-based parties. Another example is: PM Shah addressed Parliament to brief about the flood but he left parliament without speaking with political leaders. Pushpa Kamal Dahal complained of not talking with them.
These developments suggest an emerging division of roles within the government: Shah appears to be concentrating on the administrative and bureaucratic side of governance, while Lamichhane is increasingly taking responsibility for its political affairs. The same pattern appears to be developing in foreign relations. Lamichhane has already visited India and is likely to visit Beijing.
RSP leaders say Shah maintains a highly structured work routine, reaching his office on time and focusing primarily on government operations. Except for cabinet meetings, he generally meets ministers individually rather than engaging in broader political consultations. Shah’s limited engagement with political activities is not entirely new. From the beginning, he has shown little interest in working closely with politicians. He rarely participates in crucial party meetings, apart from the party’s general convention. His formal position in the party is that of a senior leader, rather than an executive office-holder, meaning he does not exercise executive authority within the party.
Since the election, it has largely been Lamichhane who has reached out to opposition parties and sought their cooperation. Shah has also been reluctant to participate in parliamentary meetings. His supporters argue that this is because the prime minister is focused on the actual work of running the government and does not necessarily need to engage extensively in day-to-day political activities.
Shah’s background may help explain this style of governance. He is a structural engineer by profession and entered politics after winning the Kathmandu Metropolitan City mayoral election as an independent. His approach to the prime minister's office therefore appears more technocratic and administrative, resembling that of a senior bureaucrat rather than a conventional political leader.
Lamichhane, in contrast, appears to be assuming the role of the government’s political intermediary. He is reaching out to opposition parties, organizing cross-party consultations and seeking political support for government initiatives. There appears to be little indication that Shah objects to Lamichhane taking the political lead.
However, this arrangement also raises an important political question: how effectively are the two leaders coordinating their roles? A government can function with a division between administrative management and political coordination, but only if the two sides are closely aligned.
In this case, opposition parties appear uncertain about whether Lamichhane’s political initiatives fully represent the government’s position, particularly because Shah himself has maintained a relatively low political profile. The emerging picture, therefore, is of a government in which Balen Shah is increasingly associated with administration and execution, while Rabi Lamichhane is becoming the government’s principal political interlocutor.
