Signs of institutional confusion are becoming increasingly visible within the Government, as long-established constitutional norms appear to be eroding. The boundaries separating the roles and responsibilities of the legislature, the executive branch and the head of state have grown indistinct, creating uncertainty over who is ultimately responsible for what.
During the recess of the autumn parliamentary session, the Speaker of Parliament spent considerable time working in the eastern and Khangai regions and has since continued his visits to districts within the capital. The nature of the issues he is promoting, along with the directives he is issuing, suggests activity more commonly associated with the head of Government rather than the leader of the legislature. At the same time, the Prime Minister has been criticized over a peace agreement initiated by the head of state of a foreign country as he signed the document on behalf of Mongolia. Critics argue that such actions fall outside the proper remit of the head of Government, encroaching instead on the constitutional role of the president. President U.Khurelsukh, meanwhile, has been actively promoting initiatives such as the White Gold and Food Revolution programs which are traditionally associated with the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Light Industry. His visible involvement in sector-specific programs has further fueled debate over the consolidation and redistribution of executive authority.
Some observers speculate that these overlapping roles may reflect a deliberate strategy: the informal division of power and responsibility among trusted political allies to maintain long-term dominance through an absolute majority. Others suggest that a different objective may be at play, one that has yet to fully reveal itself. What is increasingly clear, however, is that the blurring of institutional boundaries risks weakening accountability and undermining public confidence in governance. As the lines between constitutional roles continue to fade, questions remain not only about who governs, but how power is meant to function within the state.
N.Uchral already dictates what the Government will discuss
Article 13 of the Act of Parliament clearly defines the powers and responsibilities of the Speaker of Parliament. The Speaker is tasked with ensuring that parliamentary activities comply with the Constitution and other laws, and with announcing, preparing and presiding over regular, extraordinary and honorary sessions of Parliament. In practical terms, this role centers on organizing legislative processes such as maintaining order, drafting, debating and adopting laws.
The law further grants the Speaker authority to appoint and dismiss the heads of institutions directly accountable to Parliament, as well as his own advisers and the Secretary General of Parliament. The Speaker represents Parliament both domestically and internationally and, in accordance with Section 11.1 of the Law on the President, may temporarily assume representational duties in the President’s absence.
The question, therefore, is whether Speaker N.Uchral is currently acting within this legally defined mandate. Parliament’s role does not end with the adoption of laws. It is also responsible for overseeing their implementation. For this reason, members of Parliament regularly work in rural areas during parliamentary recesses, explaining newly adopted legislation to citizens, monitoring enforcement and gathering public feedback. In this respect, the Speaker’s visits to local communities to present the laws adopted during the autumn session and to meet with citizens fall squarely within parliamentary tradition. However, several developments have raised concerns.
During his regional visits, the Speaker worked directly alongside cabinet ministers and prominently promoted his personal initiative, “Let’s Free”. The initiative aims to create a legal environment that enables the full exercise of civil rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Within this framework, the autumn session approved a parliamentary resolution on measures to protect citizens from rising prices. The resolution included directives to the Government, Mongol Bank and the Financial Regulatory Commission, outlining 16 sets of measures to be implemented within their respective mandates.
While Parliament has the authority to adopt such resolutions, the manner of their subsequent enforcement has drawn scrutiny. Mongol Bank is, by law, an independent and self-governing institution. Yet the Speaker summoned the Bank’s Governor to his office and “advised” him to streamline the institution’s structure and conduct an audit. Shortly thereafter, Bank Governor S.Narantsogt reduced the staff by more than 120 employees, from a workforce that had exceeded 700. Although the objective of institutional efficiency may be justified, the Speaker does not possess the legal authority to issue direct instructions to an independent body such as the central bank. The distinction between parliamentary oversight and executive intervention appears to have been blurred.
More broadly, a coordinated “team” has emerged, seemingly intended to demonstrate close cooperation between Parliament and the Government, listening jointly to development policies, future trends and urgent issues. Since Parliament approves laws affecting all areas of national life, it is reasonable to argue that no issue lies entirely outside its interest.
Nevertheless, constitutional boundaries remain essential. On January 30, during a meeting with leaders of Uvurkhangai Province, the Speaker stated, “Measures to be implemented in line with regional meetings will be regularly presented at Cabinet meetings, and the working group will implement the relevant work.” This statement implies not only awareness of the Cabinet’s agenda, but also a role in shaping and directing executive decisions. Under the constitutional system, there is only one official empowered to convene, lead, and make decisions on behalf of the Cabinet: the Prime Minister. It is therefore highly unusual, and legally questionable, for the Speaker of Parliament to work in localities alongside ministers and subsequently announce or influence decisions attributed to the Government. The Act of Parliament does not grant the Speaker such authority. When legislative leadership begins to substitute for executive decision-making, the separation of powers risks being reduced to formality rather than practice.
Premier’s growing influence
Under the Constitution, the Government is the highest executive authority of the state. Subsection 38.2 assigns it responsibility for implementing the Constitution and laws nationwide, shaping economic and social development policy, managing the state budget, directing central and local administrative bodies, protecting the environment and ensuring national security. In effect, the executive branch is responsible for the country’s day-to-day governance. Article 23 of the Law on Government defines the powers of the Prime Minister, who is accountable to Parliament for leading the Government and enforcing state laws. In consultation with the President, he determines the structure and composition of the Cabinet and directs the work of ministers and local governors.
Against this backdrop, Prime Minister G.Zandanshatar’s decision to support and sign a Peace Council agreement during the World Economic Forum in Davos from January 19 to 23 has drawn criticism. Opposition MP B.Jargalan argues that the Prime Minister lacks the authority to independently sign international agreements that could bind Mongolia, insisting such matters require parliamentary discussion. As a member of the Standing Committee on Security and Foreign Policy, he says he has sought clarification without response.
Others defend the move, noting that Mongolia’s foreign policy is peace-oriented, independent and multi-pillared, and that participation in international peace initiatives is consistent with this approach. Still, the episode has raised a familiar question: whether the Prime Minister has stepped beyond his constitutional mandate into the realm of presidential authority. Once again, the debate centers not on foreign policy itself, but on the limits of executive power and the need to preserve institutional balance.
President in ‘hibernation’
What, then, is President U.Khurelsukh doing amid the current political reshuffle? The Constitution defines the President as the Head of State and the symbol of national unity. His powers are clear: he can veto laws or decisions adopted by Parliament in whole or in part, issue directives to the Government within his authority, and fully represent Mongolia in foreign relations. In consultation with Parliament, he may conclude international treaties, appoint or recall ambassadors, confer state titles and military ranks, award orders and medals, and grant pardons. He also decides on matters of citizenship and asylum, chairs the National Security Council, can declare general or partial mobilization, and, in exceptional circumstances, may declare a state of emergency or war, even issuing troop mobilization orders during a parliamentary recess or in urgent situations.
Historically, the President has exercised these powers during times of crisis. Following the “July 1” riots after the 2008 elections, the then-President declared a state of emergency. In recent years, however, Mongolia has remained largely stable. Even so, the President often intervenes when disputes arise within the ruling Mongolian People’s Party (MPP), offering guidance behind the scenes. His influence was particularly visible during the dismissal of former Prime Minister L.Oyun-Erdene. At that time, citizens criticized L.Oyun-Erdene for five years of governance that they argued had failed to improve living standards, produced only paper gains in the economy, and enriched officials personally. When L.Oyun-Erdene faced political isolation, the President stepped in, publicly rebuked him, and reversed the decision. While widely seen as a decisive and responsive action, it raised legal questions, as the President has no constitutional authority to intervene in the internal affairs of Government institutions. By law, he may attend parliamentary sessions, but he cannot influence legislative decision-making.
Today, cracks within the MPP continue to highlight the President’s informal influence. He also takes on highly visible sectoral roles, actively promoting initiatives such as the Food Revolution, White Gold and the “Billion Trees” programs, which are typically within the purview of line ministries. Many observers argue that this overreach stems from structural weaknesses: the Prime Minister is neither the party leader nor a member of Parliament, limiting his authority. For a politically constrained Prime Minister, the main goal appears to be maintaining stability until the 2027 presidential election. At that time, G.Zandanshatar may run for president, while N.Uchral could be positioned to form the Government. In this sense, some analysts suggest current actions may serve as preparation or “practice” for their respective future roles. The President has also secured the ability to nominate his preferred Cabinet members, ensuring continued influence once he assumes the Head of State role, while he himself may not return as Minister of Food, Agriculture and Light Industry in the next Government.
Opposition members have openly criticized this blurring of roles. MP L.Gantumur told Urug.mn, “Speaker of Parliament N.Uchral is ‘roaming’ outside, trying to direct the work of hospitals and even Mongol Bank. He is violating the law by intervening in independent organizations, and he has nearly met the conditions for resignation. The Speaker, the President, and the Prime Minister must exercise their authority strictly according to the law.”
Indeed, these officials are bound by law to act within their clearly defined powers. Yet when a single party dominates for extended periods and makes decisions behind closed doors, boundaries inevitably blur. Political leaders often seem more focused on maneuvering for the future and promoting themselves than on respecting institutional limits. The result is a Government that increasingly functions as a single, centralized entity. But this does not justify ignoring legal boundaries or misleading citizens about how power is supposed to operate in a constitutional democracy.
