Rule by ordinance erodes democratic values. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Biased language

Use of value-laden or judgmental wording that nudges readers toward a particular evaluation rather than neutrally presenting facts.

1) "the real intent became clearer on Monday. The session was called off before it could even begin in order to issue ordinances." 2) "Whatever the government’s defence, the ordinances appear aimed at easing decision-making for Shah within the Constitutional Council, which he chairs." 3) "Yet it opted for a path of governing by ordinances while keeping Parliament suspended." 4) "indicating a continuation of the arbitrary approach to lawmaking that it once criticised."

4 suggestions

Replace "the real intent became clearer" with a more neutral formulation that distinguishes fact from inference, e.g.: "Subsequent developments suggest that the session may have been called off in order to issue ordinances."

Change "Whatever the government’s defence, the ordinances appear aimed at easing decision-making for Shah" to: "Critics argue that the ordinances could ease decision-making for Shah within the Constitutional Council, which he chairs; the government has not publicly addressed this concern in detail."

Replace "opted for a path of governing by ordinances while keeping Parliament suspended" with: "chose to proceed via ordinances during a period when Parliament was not in session."

Change "indicating a continuation of the arbitrary approach to lawmaking" to: "which opponents view as a continuation of the approach to lawmaking they previously criticised" or provide concrete evidence that justifies the term "arbitrary."

Unsubstantiated claims

Assertions presented as fact without sufficient evidence or sourcing in the text.

1) "the real intent became clearer on Monday. The session was called off before it could even begin in order to issue ordinances." – This states a definitive motive (calling off the session "in order to" issue ordinances) without direct evidence such as official statements or documents. 2) "Whatever the government’s defence, the ordinances appear aimed at easing decision-making for Shah within the Constitutional Council, which he chairs." – The article infers intent from the composition of the Council and the quorum rule but does not show internal deliberations or explicit admissions. 3) "Monday’s developments suggest otherwise, indicating a continuation of the arbitrary approach to lawmaking that it once criticised." – The label "arbitrary" is asserted without a clear, operational definition or comparative evidence of patterns across multiple decisions.

4 suggestions

Qualify motive statements with attribution and uncertainty, e.g.: "Critics contend that the session was called off in order to issue ordinances" or "Observers interpret the timing as linked to the government’s desire to issue ordinances."

For the claim that ordinances are "aimed at easing decision-making for Shah," add explicit sourcing or data: "Legal experts such as [name] argue that the proposed quorum rule would, in practice, make it easier for Shah and allies to pass decisions even without broader consensus."

Either provide concrete evidence for the term "arbitrary" (e.g., examples of inconsistent or non-transparent lawmaking decisions by this and previous governments) or rephrase to: "a continuation of the pattern of ordinance-based lawmaking that it once criticised."

Use hedging language where evidence is inferential: "may", "could", "is seen by some as", and attribute these views to specific critics or groups.

Unbalanced reporting

Presenting one side’s arguments and framing more fully or sympathetically than the other side’s, without clearly labeling the piece as opinion or analysis.

The article provides detailed criticism of the government’s use of ordinances, citing Supreme Court precedent and constitutional principles, but the government’s rationale is only briefly summarized via one quote from Law Minister Sobita Gautam. The piece does not explore in depth: - Any concrete reasons the government might see the situation as urgent beyond the brief mention of a "legal vacuum". - Any potential benefits or necessity of the ordinances from the government’s perspective. - Any supporting legal opinions or experts who agree with the government’s interpretation. Instead, the narrative consistently reinforces the critical perspective and ends with prescriptive advice to the government (withdraw ordinances, summon Parliament), aligning the article with one side.

5 suggestions

Include more detailed explanation of the government’s stated reasons for urgency, possibly quoting additional officials or documents that outline their legal and policy rationale.

Present legal experts or constitutional scholars who support, or at least partially support, the government’s interpretation of Article 114 or the need for ordinances, if such views exist.

Explicitly label the piece as an editorial or opinion column at the top, clarifying that it advocates a particular normative stance rather than aiming for neutral reporting.

Add a paragraph summarizing potential arguments in favor of using ordinances in this context (e.g., concerns about delays in appointing a chief justice, risks of prolonged vacancies), even if the author ultimately disagrees.

Clarify that the concluding recommendations (withdraw ordinances, seek parliamentary endorsement) are the author’s or the editorial board’s view, e.g.: "In our view, the government should…"

Appeal to authority

Using the opinion or decision of an authority figure or institution as decisive proof, without fully examining the underlying reasoning or possible limitations.

1) "But her claim does not appear to be well-founded, as the Supreme Court has already clarified that when an ordinance ceases to be effective, the original provisions of the law are automatically restored. This means all the original provisions of the Act remain fully in force." 2) "Five years ago, the court had cautioned the Oli government, noting that repeated use of ordinances to circumvent Parliament was contrary to the principle of separation of powers. Describing such measures as 'camouflaged legislation,' the court had held that ordinances issued with the intent of bypassing Parliament cannot get constitutional legitimacy." The article leans heavily on Supreme Court statements to dismiss the minister’s argument and to frame the current ordinances as illegitimate, without discussing whether the past rulings are directly and fully applicable to the present factual situation or whether there is any legal debate about their scope.

4 suggestions

Clarify the scope and relevance of the cited Supreme Court decisions: briefly explain the context of those cases and how closely they match the current situation.

Acknowledge that legal interpretation can be contested: e.g., "While the Supreme Court has previously held X, some legal experts argue that the present circumstances differ because Y."

Present the minister’s or government’s legal reasoning in more detail, and then explain why specific legal experts disagree, rather than treating the court’s past language as automatically dispositive.

Use more precise language: instead of "her claim does not appear to be well-founded," specify: "According to [legal expert/source], this claim conflicts with the Supreme Court’s interpretation in [case], which held that…"

Oversimplification

Reducing a complex legal and political issue to a simple narrative that may omit relevant nuances.

1) "Issuing ordinances is a constitutional prerogative of the government, enshrined in Article 114 of the Constitution. However, it is subject to two mandatory conditions: first, that Parliament must not be in session; and second, that there must be a need for urgent action." – The summary is broadly accurate but does not acknowledge possible interpretive debates about what constitutes "urgent action" or how strictly the condition is applied in practice. 2) "Yet it opted for a path of governing by ordinances while keeping Parliament suspended." – This framing suggests a binary choice and implies that the government is simply choosing ordinances over Parliament, without exploring procedural, political, or timing constraints that might influence that choice. 3) The article treats the presence of a near two-thirds majority as making ordinary legislation "relatively easy" without considering intra-coalition dynamics, party discipline, or other factors that can complicate lawmaking.

4 suggestions

Add a brief note that the definition of "urgent action" under Article 114 is subject to interpretation and has been contested in past political and legal debates.

Clarify that while the government has a near two-thirds majority, legislative processes can still be affected by internal party disagreements, committee procedures, and time constraints.

Rephrase "opted for a path of governing by ordinances" to something like: "chose to use ordinances in this instance, despite having the numbers in Parliament to potentially pass legislation through the regular process."

Include a sentence acknowledging that governments of different parties have historically used ordinances, and that the broader pattern is complex, even if the author believes this use is problematic.

Confirmation bias / Narrative fallacy

Selecting and arranging facts to fit a pre-existing narrative (here: that rule by ordinance erodes democracy and that the current government is repeating past abuses), while downplaying or omitting facts that might complicate that story.

The article’s title and structure build a narrative: past governments misused ordinances; the Supreme Court warned against this; the current government promised reform; now it is repeating the same pattern. Facts that support this storyline (court warnings, opposition composition of the Council, RSP’s past pledges) are highlighted, while potentially complicating factors (e.g., any specific risks of delay in appointing a chief justice, any time-sensitive cooperative issues, or any procedural reasons for postponing the session) are not explored in depth. The conclusion—"indicating a continuation of the arbitrary approach to lawmaking that it once criticised"—fits neatly into this narrative but is not fully substantiated with a broader pattern of behavior beyond this episode.

4 suggestions

Explicitly acknowledge that the article is focusing on one episode and that a full assessment of the government’s approach to lawmaking would require examining multiple decisions over time.

Include any available facts that might support the government’s urgency claim (e.g., specific deadlines, pending cases, or harms from delay), even if the author ultimately finds them insufficient.

Rephrase narrative-heavy conclusions to reflect the limited evidence base, e.g.: "This episode risks reinforcing perceptions that the government is continuing patterns of ordinance-based lawmaking it once criticised."

Add a sentence noting that previous governments of various parties have also used ordinances, and briefly compare the frequency or context, to avoid implying that this is unique to the current administration unless data supports that claim.