By Our Reporter

Voters did their part. They showed up, handed over a mandate, and expected something more than recycled speeches and ceremonial meets. Now the new House has started its work, and within the first meeting itself, lawmakers admitted what everyone already knew. The real job is not starting fresh. It is clearing a stubborn backlog that earlier parliaments kept kicking down the road.

Barshaman Pun said it without dressing it up. The new parliament must deal with both past gains and unfinished obligations. That sounds polite. In reality, it means stepping into a half-built house and being told to move in immediately.

Start with transitional justice. Nearly two decades after the Comprehensive Peace Accord, victims of the conflict still wait for closure. Laws exist. Commissions exist. What does not exist is completion. The new parliament cannot afford to treat this as another technical file to “review.” It needs to push for time-bound outcomes, not endless extensions. Justice delayed has already turned into justice diluted. Another round of hesitation would only confirm that the state has learned how to manage pain, not resolve it.

Shift to federalism, and the gap between promise and practice becomes even clearer. The Constitution of Nepal 2015 laid out a federal structure with neat divisions of power. A decade later, the structure still looks like a draft. Laws that should have clarified roles remain pending. Confusion continues over who controls administration, police, and finances across the three tiers of government.

This is where the new parliament must stop pretending that timelines alone equal reform. The proposed Federal Civil Service Bill, expected within 45 days, is not just another piece of legislation. It is the backbone of administrative federalism. Without it, provinces remain decorative and local governments operate with borrowed authority.

The intent to depoliticize bureaucracy sounds admirable. Ban party links, remove union pressure, enforce discipline. It all reads well on paper. But laws do not implement themselves. Parliament must ensure that enforcement mechanisms are built into the system from day one. Otherwise, this bill will join the long list of “strong laws, weak practice.”

A similar pattern shows up in police reform. Laws on police adjustment were passed years ago. Numbers were calculated. Structures were approved. And then everything stopped. No integration, no restructuring, no shift toward provincial policing. The system stayed comfortably centralized.

This is not a legal problem anymore. It is a political one. The new parliament must decide whether it actually believes in federalism or just likes mentioning it in speeches. Moving ahead requires coordination between federal and provincial governments, clear chains of command, and, most importantly, the willingness to let go of central control. Without that, police adjustment will remain a well-documented idea.

Public attention, meanwhile, has shifted to education. And for good reason. People do not read policy documents, but they do feel school fees. The long-delayed Education Bill sits right at the intersection of constitutional promise and everyday frustration.

The Rastriya Swatantra Party, now holding significant power, had earlier pushed for practical reforms. It raised uncomfortable questions about “free education” that still comes with hidden charges. Sumana Shrestha pointed out the obvious flaw. If “full scholarship” has no clear definition, schools will keep finding creative ways to charge parents.

Now that the party is no longer in opposition mode, it cannot hide behind critique. It must deliver clarity. Define terms. Close loopholes. Give local governments the legal tools they were promised. Otherwise, constitutional rights under Article 31 of the Constitution of Nepal will continue to exist as nice sentences that nobody fully experiences.

Then comes the awkward truth about fundamental rights. Nepal has laws covering them. What it lacks is implementation. Regulations remain incomplete. Systems remain weak. Rights like housing, employment, and clean environment exist more in legal language than in daily life.

This is where the new parliament faces its most uncomfortable task. Passing laws is visible work. Implementing them is slower, less glamorous, and far more difficult. But without that second step, everything else becomes performance.

The government, led by Balen Shah, has promised speed. Deadlines have been announced. Ministers like Sobita Gautam say ministries are moving fast. That is encouraging, at least on paper. But speed without direction creates rushed laws and confused systems. Nepal has seen that movie before. What the parliament must do now is combine urgency with discipline. Prioritize fewer laws, but finish them properly. Build consensus early instead of fighting at the final stage. Keep vested interests out of drafting rooms. Most importantly, follow through after laws are passed.

Even critics like Bhishmaraj Angdembe agree on one thing. Stability and clear policy matter more than noise. Without them, public frustration will not stay quiet forever.

The new parliament carries high expectations, partly because it includes many fresh faces, especially from the RSP. That creates both an advantage and a risk. Fresh lawmakers can break old habits. Or they can learn them very quickly.

The post New parliament must push through key laws appeared first on Peoples' Review.