The recent ascendance of Nepal’s Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) and its unconventional leadership under Prime Minister Balendra Shah has sparked a notable division within the country’s intellectual community, spotlighting concerns over government accountability and the role of public discourse in democratic governance.

One month ago, an op-ed reflecting on Prime Minister Shah’s leadership style and the Gen Z movement that partly propelled the RSP to electoral success ignited debate among Nepali media and scholars. Critics argue that a segment of the intellectual community has shifted its loyalty toward the ruling faction, potentially compromising its traditional role as a watchdog responsible for critical oversight. Supporters of the government, however, view the RSP’s rise as a corrective response to perceived inefficiencies and governance failures by previous administrations.

The op-ed’s author recounted favorable experiences abroad, suggesting an improved international perception of Nepal and its passport. While the Henley Passport Index indicates a modest improvement in Nepal’s ranking for 2026, experts caution that this trend is consistent with gradual progress observed over recent years, rather than a direct result of the government’s image or the Gen Z movement. Furthermore, Nepal’s inclusion in the United States’ expanded Visa Bond Program since January has raised questions about the passport’s actual standing.

The RSP’s electoral victory is widely seen as partly stemming from public dissatisfaction with established politicians and prior governance shortfalls. Prime Minister Shah’s role during the protests that preceded the party’s formation—marked by delayed deployment of municipal resources and measured calls for protest participation on social media—points to a complex relationship between the party and the Gen Z movement. A report from Nepal’s National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has implicated several RSP leaders and 17 parliamentarians in violent incidents on September 9, underscoring the contentious nature of that period. Observers note parallels between current divisions among intellectuals and earlier periods in Nepal’s history when factions aligned themselves with insurgent movements and discounted allegations of violence.

The conduct of Prime Minister Shah, particularly his reportedly disrespectful behavior towards the sovereign Parliament, has drawn criticism for breaching established parliamentary norms. Some government supporters frame these actions as a break from convention, but detractors maintain that such behavior undermines democratic processes and disrespect the electorate’s mandate. The RSP’s approach to parliamentary duties, they argue, fails to acknowledge that the institution represents the nation’s citizens beyond mere partisan interests.

This pattern of intellectual realignments — where scholars and public thinkers tend to side with those in power regardless of governance quality — is not new in Nepal. Historical shifts from Rana autocracy to multiparty democracy, through Panchayat rule and republicanism, reveal recurring instances where intellectuals have either supported or remained silent on government excesses. According to commentators, this tendency has contributed to political instability marked by frequent changes in government and regime.

Advocates for a stronger intellectual role urge scholars to fulfill their responsibility by offering constructive criticism and holding leaders accountable. Critics warn that unquestioning endorsement of government actions risks fostering authoritarian tendencies. They emphasize that intellectual engagement should extend beyond mere narration, encompassing deep analysis of issues such as the handling of informal settlers, contentious judicial and legal appointments, and other unorthodox government practices.

Drawing on historical parallels, observers highlight the consequences of intellectual passivity in moments of crisis, suggesting that a culture of critical discourse is essential for steering government conduct toward transparency and justice. The ongoing debate in Nepal reflects a broader challenge of balancing political allegiance with the commitment to uphold democratic accountability and the public interest.