- Nepal’s Rastriya Swatantra Party faces criticism for controversial appointments that contradict its core slogans of meritocracy, transparency, and ethical governance.
- Maheshwar Bhakta Shrestha, aged nearly 80, was appointed to Nepal Airlines Corporation, bypassing the established 65-year age limit for public entity heads.
- Finance Minister Swarnim Wagle's appointment of Aastha Bhatt to Rastriya Banijya Bank raised conflict-of-interest concerns due to their shared institutional links.
- These decisions highlight a growing gap between the RSP’s anti-nepotism promises and its actual governance, testing the party's political credibility.
Kathmandu. “We are not like the old political parties,” “No favoritism, only meritocracy,” and “No influence, only competence”—these were the key slogans that helped the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) rise rapidly to the center of Nepal’s political landscape.
The party built its identity by criticizing traditional political forces for nepotism, political patronage, favoritism, and appointments made without following proper procedures. However, the RSP-led government is now facing criticism over two recent appointments that have raised questions about its commitment to good governance, transparency, and merit-based decision-making.
The appointment of nearly 80-year-old Maheshwar Bhakta Shrestha as Executive Chairman and Managing Director of Nepal Airlines Corporation, along with Finance Minister Dr. Swarnim Wagle’s decision to appoint Aastha Bhatt—an employee of an institution where he serves as Chairman Emeritus—as a board member of Rastriya Banijya Bank, has triggered a debate over the government’s claims of meritocracy and ethical governance.
These decisions have raised not only legal concerns but also questions about the political credibility and moral foundation on which the RSP built its image.
Age Limit Criteria Overlooked?
Nepal Airlines Corporation has long struggled with financial difficulties, weak management, and political interference. The government has assigned the responsibility of reforming the troubled national carrier to Maheshwar Bhakta Shrestha.
Shrestha is widely recognized as an experienced figure in Nepal’s civil aviation sector. He served at Nepal Airlines Corporation for more than two decades. However, he left the corporation in 1992, and more than three decades have passed since his departure.
The controversy surrounding his appointment is not about his experience, but about whether the appointment process complied with existing rules and standards.
The “Public Entity Members and Office-Bearers Appointment and Nomination Standards, 2073” under the Ministry of Tourism states that a person appointed as the executive head of a public entity must be at least 30 years old and must not exceed 65 years of age.
Shrestha, however, is well above the prescribed age limit.
The government argues that the Nepal Airlines Corporation Act does not specify an age limit for board members and that Shrestha was first appointed as a board member before being assigned executive responsibilities from among the directors.
However, legal experts have questioned whether bypassing established guidelines through procedural interpretation is consistent with the principles of the rule of law.
From a Court-Annulled Appointment to Executive Leadership
Shrestha has previously been involved in a disputed appointment process.
The Supreme Court had earlier annulled the appointment of five Nepal Airlines Corporation board members, including Shrestha, after a petition challenged the government’s decision to ignore the recommendation ranking of the selection committee.
Following the court’s decision, the government appointed them again through a new process and later assigned Shrestha the role of Executive Chairman and Managing Director.
Critics argue that the development raises a broader question: Is the government respecting the spirit of judicial decisions, or is it using procedural interpretations to justify its preferred choices?
Finance Minister’s Institutional Link Raises Conflict-of-Interest Concerns
The second controversy involves Finance Minister Dr. Swarnim Wagle.
Aastha Bhatt, appointed by Minister Wagle as a board member of Rastriya Banijya Bank, is a program specialist at the Institute for Integrated Development Studies (IIDS)—an organization where Dr. Wagle currently holds the position of Chairman Emeritus.
Before joining the government, Wagle served as the chairman of IIDS. Although he resigned from that position after becoming finance minister, the organization later appointed him as Chairman Emeritus.
The government appears to have justified Bhatt’s appointment based on her academic qualifications and professional experience. However, critics argue that the primary concern is not her competence but the potential ethical implications of the appointment.
Public administration experts have warned that appointing an employee of an institution associated with a serving minister to the board of a government-owned entity under the same ministry could create a perception of a conflict of interest and raise concerns about institutional independence.
Growing Gap Between Commitments and Actions
The RSP’s political rise was largely based on its promise to introduce a different style of governance from traditional parties. As a result, every decision taken by the party while in power is being closely scrutinized.
Finance Minister Wagle has repeatedly stated that government appointments would be based on merit rather than political influence or personal connections. He has also expressed commitment to introducing legal mechanisms to prevent conflicts of interest.
However, the recent appointments have led critics to argue that there is a growing gap between the government’s public commitments and its actions.
A Test of Political Credibility
The government has defended both appointments, arguing that they were made within the legal framework and based on experience and professional competence.
However, in democratic governance, the question is not only what is legally permissible but also what is ethically appropriate and publicly acceptable.
The RSP had previously criticized similar appointments made by traditional parties, describing them as examples of political favoritism and disregard for institutional procedures. Therefore, its own decisions in government are now being judged by the same standards.
The controversy surrounding these appointments highlights a larger challenge facing the RSP: changing governments may be possible overnight, but changing the culture of governance requires consistent actions and accountability.
If the RSP wants to establish itself as a symbol of “new politics,” its credibility will ultimately depend not on its promises, but on how it exercises power and makes decisions while in government.
