KATHMANDU: On May 16, Prime Minister Balendra Shah posted a photo featuring Yak Cheese, a product of the Dairy Development Corporation (DDC), from his personal Facebook page ‘Balen’. After he promoted the product of the crisis-ridden state-owned corporation, general Facebook users widely praised the Prime Minister, stating that he was promoting domestic production. Following this, news reports have emerged indicating that market interest and sales regarding DDC’s products, including Yak Cheese, have started to increase.
By the time this news report was prepared, the Facebook post featuring the Yak Cheese had received over 495,000 likes and more than 48,000 comments. On other social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter) and Instagram, numerous users were also seen flocking to Shah’s cheese promotion.
Shah’s Facebook page is created under the ‘Musician/Band’ category. That is, this page was created when he was a rapper. However, what is surprising is that the Prime Minister’s official email is used on it. Since becoming Prime Minister on March 27, 2026, the email has been placed on this Facebook page so that it appears prominently at the forefront of the profile. This means it has started to be used as equivalent to the Prime Minister’s official social media platform.
Indeed, whether it is to reassure displaced landless settlers and informal settlers about management plans, or to justify the government’s dissolution of student and employee unions, Prime Minister Shah has been writing from his personal platform. In a post he wrote on May 4 regarding the removed landless settlers, the language used directly speaks on behalf of the ‘Government of Nepal’.
“Safe and organized relocation arrangements will be made for citizens living in unsafe locations. In the case of other landless citizens, the Government of Nepal will make the necessary decisions based on the recommendations of the relevant commission and the collected data,” he wrote in the said post. “The Government of Nepal wishes to clarify that all steps taken are not aimed at removing citizens, but are being pushed forward with the objective of finding a permanent solution to the problem while ensuring the right to housing,” reads the post.
Shah’s special interest in using personal digital platforms instead of government platforms has been evident since he was the Mayor of Kathmandu Metropolitan City. Metropolitian plans, programs, and achievements used to be posted on his own page.
Whatever is posted on the ‘Balen’ page becomes a subject of discussion and debate in the digital world. On Saturday, May 9, he posted a photo on Facebook sitting on a chair wearing a white shirt, grey striped pants, white shoes, and black sunglasses. On that day, he also posted a video wearing the same outfit on TikTok. That photo and video went ‘viral’ on social media within moments and created a ‘trend’. People were seen using AI to generate photos of themselves in similar attire to post, while others were searching for similar outfits in the market.
Due to this buzz and popularity, Shah has continued to promote the use of his personal page even after becoming Prime Minister. The rapper-turned-politician has 4.6 million followers on Facebook, 2.4 million on Instagram, over 632,000 on TikTok, and 450,000 followers on X.
In contrast, the official Facebook page of the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers (PMO Nepal) has only 94,000 followers. However, the PMO’s X account is followed by 724,000 people.
Although Shah is seen publicizing and promoting various issues and goods tied to public concern on his private network pages, he is actually still working on personal ‘branding’ even after reaching public office. Santosh Sigdel, an advocate for digital rights, says that behind public officials using personal social media platforms, factors ranging from the desire to reach many people with a message to economic income are intertwined. “Behind this practice, there may be a desire to deliver messages quickly through a page with many followers, as well as the incentive of economic income generated through monetization,” says Sigdel, who is the Executive Director of Digital Rights Nepal.
In fact, for Prime Minister Shah, digital platforms are not just a space to expand influence and gain power among the public, but also a foundation for financial resources. Achieving high engagement on digital platform posts, he earns a good income from social media. In the property disclosure made public by Prime Minister Shah on April 12, it is mentioned that he has a cash balance of 14.6 million rupees in the bank, and the source of this income includes digital platforms like Facebook, YouTube, Spotify, and iTunes.
A new debate has begun in Nepal regarding the use of personal pages for disseminating public information and the issue of good governance due to the use of personal digital platforms operated by Prime Minister Shah and the members of his cabinet.
Deepa Dahal, the press and research expert for the Prime Minister, states that there is a policy to use both government and personal platforms. “We have adopted a policy to systematically use the digital platforms that belong to the government,” she says. “Work is underway to make the flow of information through government agency platforms even more effective.”
Following the Prime Minister’s example, ministers are also prioritizing the use of personal platforms over government ones. The activities of the Ministry of Law, Justice, and Parliamentary Affairs appear less on the ministry’s Facebook page and more on the personal page of Minister Sobita Gautam. The Facebook page of the Ministry of Finance is in an even worse state. This ministry’s page has not been updated since September 15, 2022. Meanwhile, Finance Minister Swarnim Wagle’s page is constantly updated.
A new debate has begun in Nepal regarding the use of personal pages for disseminating public information and the issue of good governance due to the use of personal digital platforms operated by Prime Minister Shah and the members of his cabinet.
Cabinet Meeting
Dipesh Ghimire, an assistant professor at Tribhuvan University and a researcher on good governance, says that controversies arise when individuals holding government and public offices use personal platforms on social media. “People holding the position of Prime Minister or high government offices are considered national assets. Therefore, the social media pages, handles, and emails they use should be official government ones, not personal,” he says.
When officials in public positions use personal platforms, issues of security risks and archiving come into play. Sigdel, Executive Director of Digital Rights Nepal, states that the use of personal accounts by individuals in public office can bring about problems. “When people in public office use personal accounts, it creates problems for the credibility of information and official record management,” Sigdel says.
When people in public office use personal accounts, it creates problems for the credibility of information and official record management.
Today, social media networks on the internet have become major mediums worldwide for connecting directly with the public and for political communication. Leaders and government officials have been using such networks to deliver their statements directly to target groups and classes without the assistance of mass media. Similarly, digital platforms have become a medium for conducting international relations and diplomacy.
Relations between countries, congratulations offered on Independence Days or elections, and diplomatic messages are now exchanged through digital platforms instead of formal letters.
Sigdel states that when disseminating information and messages on official matters, government platforms should be used instead of personal accounts on networks. “When government officials use personal social media accounts instead of official handles, the risk of spreading false and misleading information increases significantly,” he says.
Neglected government platforms
It is not just Prime Minister Shah; most members of his cabinet tend to use personal social media more than government platforms. Government ministers have thousands to hundreds of thousands of followers on their Facebook pages.
Digital platforms have provided Prime Minister Balendra Shah not only with a personal brand but also with a strong political foundation. Social media gave Shah the basis to compete with political forces that have been active for decades and possess millions of cadres.
Sasmit Pokharel, the government spokesperson and Minister for Youth, Education, and Sports, has 307,000 followers on his Facebook profile. He has used his own profile to promote achievements ranging from the procedures implemented by the ministry to the publication of the Secondary Education Examination (SEE) results within just one month.
Ujjwal Acharya, Director of the Center for Media Research, states that running a personal digital platform is not inherently bad. “There are specific groups one needs to communicate with, and for that, using a personal platform is necessary,” he says. “However, operating them while ignoring government platforms is not appropriate. Formal government channels of communication must also be used.” Acharya states that there should be no conflict of interest when operating personal platforms.
Personal ‘branding’ via digital platforms
The role of digital platforms belonging to Prime Minister Shah and his aides was crucial in his electoral victories, from Mayor of Kathmandu Metropolitan City to Member of the House of Representatives. He used digital platforms as a medium to promote alternative politics against traditional political forces. Less than four years after entering active politics, he went from being the Mayor of Kathmandu to becoming the Prime Minister of the country. Although his responsibilities have changed, he has not changed his medium for disseminating information.
Digital platforms have provided Shah not only with a personal brand but also with a strong political foundation. Social media gave Shah the basis to compete with political forces that have been active for decades and possess millions of cadres. By utilizing this, he also succeeded in becoming the executive head of the country.
Shah is not the first leader to reach power using digital platforms. This trend is global. Digital platforms played a crucial role in bringing leaders from US President Donald Trump to Narendra Modi in India to power. Trump used X (formerly Twitter), Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro used WhatsApp, and Modi used Facebook, X, YouTube, WhatsApp, and Instagram. Through these, they directly conversed and communicated with voters, bypassing the ‘gatekeeping’ of established media. Such platforms also create ‘echo chambers,’ where users see only the opinions they like. This makes it easier for false and misleading information to spread.
The credit for making the influence of Shah—who won the Kathmandu Metropolitan City mayoral race as an independent candidate—nationwide goes to digital platforms. Specifically, the graph of his popularity, which started with the younger generation, continually climbed, and its scope expanded to other age groups as well. Noting this influence, the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) brought him into the party as a senior leader before the election on March 5, 2026 and went into the election campaign naming him as the Prime Minister candidate.
Shah and the RSP utilized digital platforms for election campaigning. In the election held on March 5, 2026, the RSP won nearly a two-thirds majority in the House of Representatives elections. Political parties like the Nepali Congress, CPN (UML), and Nepali Communist Party, as well as leaders of those parties, have also been using digital tools to get their messages out to the public. However, it does not seem to have been as effective as the new force’s approach.
The risk of personal handles
Sigdel of Digital Rights Nepal states that while there are rules in Nepal regarding how government agencies should use social media, there is nothing in place regarding individuals. “Although the Government of Nepal has introduced the ‘Social Media Operation Directives’, it only covers the subject of how government offices should operate them,” he says. “This directive is silent on how office heads or political leadership should distinguish between and operate personal and government accounts.”
When there is a lack of clarity regarding the use of government and private digital platforms, the risk of controversy remains likely. A similar debate became a major issue in the United States a decade ago. During the 2016 presidential election, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email and private server while serving as Secretary of State became a major political controversy. Various agencies investigated the matter. Although criminal charges were not filed against her, she suffered political damage.
“Hillary Clinton’s email controversy showed the risks of using personal channels while holding public office,” says TU Assistant Professor Ghimire. “Since questions regarding information confidentiality and security can arise on personal handles, government handles are appropriate.” According to Ghimire, many analysts consider the email controversy to be one of the major reasons behind Clinton’s defeat.
In Nepal, such problems have frequently arisen when new matters emerge. The issue of civil servants holding permanent residency (PR) permits from other countries had emerged previously. When there was no provision regarding it in the previous Civil Service Act, it was viewed from a moral standpoint. However, the law was amended in 2015 to forbid it.
The RSP, the party represented by Shah, entered the scene making good governance its primary issue. “It seems necessary for a government carrying the agenda of good governance to bring such matters within policies and systems to regulate them,” Ghimire says. “When the boundary between personal and government handles is not clear, it does not send a positive message.”
It appears necessary to clarify the issue of digital platforms by enacting the required policies and laws. In Nepal, digital platforms are not just a medium for political propaganda, but have become an integral part of politics. For this reason, if legal provisions are not made in the coming days to define the boundaries of institutional and personal communication, it will bring even more problems in the future.
