A Risky Bureaucratic Overhaul

The government's initiative to remove around 60,000 employees working on contract, daily-wage and temporary bases has sparked a fresh debate over its approach to overhauling the bureaucracy. The proposal, currently under review at the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers, aims to replace a significant portion of the existing workforce with outsourced services. Government officials argue that a combination of technology, workload analysis and outsourcing could reduce costs, enhance productivity and shrink an already bloated bureaucracy. This proposal comes as the government is already pursuing another contentious reform. It has been attempting to reduce the size of the civil service by introducing compulsory retirement after 55 years of age or 30 years of service. That draft, now stalled at the Ministry of Law due to legal reservations, reflects the government's broader effort to reduce the state payroll. Together, the two initiatives point to an ambitious attempt to reshape Nepal's bureaucracy. The question is not whether reform is necessary but whether the government is pursuing the right path. The political risks are just as significant as the legal ones. Thousands of workers who have served government offices for years—some for nearly two decades—now face uncertainty. Even before the proposal has reached the Cabinet, contract employees have staged protests outside government offices, saying they will not silently accept a decision that threatens their livelihoods.

The Social Welfare Council has already decided not to renew dozens of contracts, offering a glimpse of what could follow elsewhere. Courts may also be asked to determine whether long-serving contract employees can be removed through a broad policy decision without adequate legal safeguards. If the government moves too quickly without a solid legal foundation, the entire exercise could become mired in litigation. Few would dispute that Nepal's bureaucracy needs reform. Government departments are often characterized by overlapping responsibilities, weak performance evaluation and outdated working methods. Temporary employment has expanded without a national policy to regulate it. In many cases, government offices continue to renew contracts annually instead of establishing a transparent staffing system. Correcting these inconsistencies is a legitimate objective. However, the reform must not become an excuse for political appointments. This concern should not be taken lightly, as politically connected individuals are often appointed after incumbent employees are removed. In many public institutions, party loyalty rather than competence has been the basis for appointments. Some of these appointees have been criticized for lacking both experience and the skills required for their positions. Without strong oversight, private contractors responsible for supplying outsourced manpower could simply replace one inefficient system with another. Public money could still be wasted through different channels.

The human cost also deserves careful consideration. Tens of thousands of families depend on these jobs. Many employees accepted lower job security in exchange for years of public service. If government employees were to lose their jobs all at once, it would not only place severe financial strain on their families but also undermine morale across government offices. Moreover, the government's plan is likely to face legal challenges. Nepal's aspiration for a smaller, more effective government is a legitimate one. But simply eliminating jobs will not deliver that transformation. Downsizing alone cannot drive meaningful reform. Instead, the government must establish transparent recruitment practices, a performance-based evaluation system, expanded digital public services and institutional safeguards that protect civil servants from political interference. Unless the ongoing reform is guided by these principles, eliminating 60,000 positions will merely reduce the number of government employees without improving the quality of governance.