A caretaker government is supposed to protect the system, not play god with it
Nepal is tired. Not the kind of tiredness that sleep resolves, the kind that comes from watching the same political play performed over and over again with new actors and the same script. Governments fall, coalitions rearrange, and somewhere in that noise the public disappears. This time the script has learned a new trick; an interim government formed after what's being celebrated as a Discord vote, now talking as if it won a national election.
Yes, something called a vote took place online. That's not the point. The point is trust. Who verified it? Who audited it? Who guaranteed it wasn't infiltrated by outside hands or amplified by a tiny, organised minority? When state power hangs on a process that runs inside an online chat server, I think we as citizens are entitled and obliged to question it.
Even though I agree that this arrangement was necessary to stop the bleeding, the role was always of caretaker, not ruler. The job description is clear, keep the lights on, run a clean and credible election in March, hand over the keys to whoever the people actually choose. That's it.
Currently, the interim government suddenly turned its attention towards the foreign service and decided to recall 11 ambassadors, claiming they were "political appointees" and "under-performing." The Supreme Court stepped in and stopped the move, saying the government hadn't provided a proper reason. But even after that, the interim government still seems determined to go through with it. And that's what really bothers me.
If ambassadorial positions are, by nature, political appointments, then what makes this recall any different? How do we know this isn't just another politically motivated move by an unelected government trying to plant its own people in these posts? Why is this administration so focused on foreign relations when we're just months away from mid-term elections and the country is still struggling to find its balance at home? What gives the Prime Minister the confidence to question the qualifications of career diplomats abroad when her own government hasn't even managed to steady things domestically?
As we all know and have seen first-hand, a caretaker government derives its authority from restraint, not reach. It's a trustee, not a conqueror. Replacing or recalling ambassadors is a high-impact decision with long-term consequences for the country's credibility. That's not "keeping the lights on", that's rewiring the whole building.
When an interim government born of an "online vote" starts rearranging the diplomatic corps, it crosses the line between administration and appropriation.
You don't need a law degree to sense the danger. Each incoming government keeps editing the state to suit itself, turning the system into a whiteboard that anyone in power can erase and rewrite. This unelected caretaker government doesn't seem to understand that even if that online voting process were somehow legitimate, it was meant to be a temporary fix to stabilise the country, not a free pass to create new problems. Instead of meddling with foreign affairs, they should be focussed on establishing domestic stability and preparing for elections. And even if we were to agree, for the sake of argument, that these ambassadors were "political appointments," so what? That's how the system has always worked, in this country and in many other similar federal democracies. What matters is that the people currently serving in those roles, at least from what I've seen and researched, are well- qualified and capable of representing Nepal with professionalism and dignity.
Let's be honest about the previous administrations, the so-called "teen tauke" of our Nepalese politics: Sher Bahadur Deuba, Prachanda, and K. P. Oli. They've ruled this country like a rotating monument to themselves, a kind of Nepali Mount Rushmore, only carved out of arrogance instead of stone.
When I was younger, I used to argue with my father about Prachanda. I told him I liked what Prachanda said, his early speeches about equality, justice, giving power back to the people. My father would just shake his head and tell me, "You can respect ideas, but never trust someone who changes his colour every time the light shifts." Prachanda's story, like the rest of the teen tauke, is one of transformation only when it suits them. Every time the country starts demanding accountability, they repaint themselves as reformers just to keep the same system alive.
Together, these men have dragged the state through decades of patronage, backroom deals, and self-preservation. They politicised the bureaucracy, personalised every institution, and reduced leadership to survival tactics. That's not governance, it's maintenance of power. And yet, instead of learning from their mess, this interim government is starting to look just like them, confusing revenge with reform. You don't fix a broken system by breaking more of it.
The current wave of ambassadorial recalls feels like another act in the same performance, different faces, same script.
At the end of the day, this is not just about ambassadors or diplomatic reshuffles, it's about how power behaves when it's not earned. A caretaker government is supposed to protect the system, not play god with it. It is there to hold the line until the people speak again, not to pretend the silence in between is consent. Nepal doesn't need another government obsessed with optics and power plays; it needs one that understands its limits.
If this government truly came to stabilise Nepal, then it should act like it. Stop punishing professionals who have barely had time to do their jobs. Stop exporting drama to our embassies just to look decisive. What it needs now is discipline backed by stability. Run a clean, verifiable election. Let the people choose. Hand over a functioning state, not another stage set for the next round of chaos.
Acharya is currently reading at London School of Economics, Msc (Urbanisation and Development)
