Nepal ranks among the world's most politically unstable countries, having witnessed 29 governments in the 35 years since 1990. This instability intensified even after the abolition of the 240-year-old monarchy in 2008, which ended the unitary system and ushered in a federal democratic republic. The new political system promised inclusion, empowerment, and good governance—promises that have largely gone unfulfilled. Political leaders routinely blame 'hung parliaments' for persistent instability and poor governance. However, the root cause of this instability is the imprudence of political elites, fostered by voter apathy.
The thrust of the Gen Z movement of September 8-9, 2025, which resulted in the loss of 76 lives and the unprecedented and unpardonable devastation of the country's historic and invaluable installations and documents, was to reduce corruption, end political instability, reform governance structures, end leadership recycling, and ensure meaningful representation of youth at every decision-making level to make Nepal a livable country. But given the way the elections are being held on March 5, 2026, it seems imminent that another hung parliament will be produced. This would consequently drag the country into chaos, instability, and hopeless performance from both parliament and the government.
The constitutions of 1990, 2007, and 2015 followed the structural legacy of Panchayat-era statutes. Nepal’s first modern constitution of 1948 introduced a bicameral legislature, and subsequent iterations reproduced its variations. The 1959 constitution provided for a 145-member parliament; the 1990 constitution raised the number to 265; the 2007 interim constitution to 330; and the 2015 constitution to 334 members. Since 1959, the population has increased threefold and the gross domestic product (GDP) manifold. However, these increments in representation do not match the growing needs of Nepal’s economy or its capacity.
The country spent Rs 2.6 billion on payments to 601 members over four years (April 2008 to May 2012) to write a 181-page constitution that required an overhaul within 10 years. This figure does not include other associated costs. Had the government formed a 25-member constitution drafting committee—including Members of Parliament (MPs), experts in constitutional law, economics, human rights, politics, development, planning, natural resources, demography, and gender—it could have produced a better constitution in less than a year.
The 2015 constitution institutionalized inefficiency, commercialized politics, and created employment for uneducated party cadres through an oversized federal setup: a jumbo central government, seven provincial governments, and 753 local units. With 334 federal MPs, 550 provincial legislators, and 35,221 local representatives—totaling 36,105 paid positions—the system has become financially unsustainable. These burdensome structures reflect a politics divorced from economic realities and committed more to patronage than good governance, exacerbating Nepal’s social, economic, and political malaise.
The primary cause of Nepal’s excessive political representation is the mala fide intent of political leaders to reward their uneducated activists and staunch supporters with positions. The second is their sheer socio-economic imprudence. The third is the pursuit of ethnic, linguistic, regional, and caste-based representation—once seen as a corrective to historical exclusion. The fourth is voters’ indifference in holding leadership accountable. Nepal’s cultural diversity, with 127 ethnic groups and 125 languages, has become both a strength and a challenge. The shift to federalism, however, has instead resulted in an overextended political system that strains the country's financial resources.
A Comparison with Neighbours
A regional comparison of governance structures across South Asia reveals stark contrasts in political representation relative to population size, geographic scale, and economic capacity. India, with over 1.46 billion people and a GDP of US$ 3.4 trillion, has an 800-member bicameral parliament. Pakistan, with 255 million people, has 436 federal parliamentarians. Bangladesh, whose GDP is US$ 460 billion, manages 175 million people with a 350-member unicameral legislature. By contrast, Nepal, with just 29 million people and a GDP of a mere US$ 40.83 billion, has 334 federal MPs and 550 provincial legislators.
CC Act amendment bill registered with provision to allow just t...
A brief comparison:
A small house cannot carry a palace on its roof. Nepal’s political architecture has instead resulted in duplication, inefficiency, and fiscal waste. To align governance with capability, Nepal must adopt a leaner, smarter structure. Nepal’s current governance architecture comes with a steep price tag. The federal budget for FY 2023/24 underscores this fiscal burden: Rs 1.22 billion allocated to the federal parliament, Rs 210.9 million to provincial governors, Rs 69.51 billion to provinces, and Rs 103.14 billion to local levels—totaling Rs 174.09 billion, or 9.94% of the national budget. In contrast, the budget allocated to education, science, and technology sectors—the key to Nepal’s future prosperity—is just 11.26%.
Overhaul the Structure
Protracted political instability, driven by hung parliaments and fragile coalition governments, has plagued Nepal—largely due to constitutional anomalies—raising questions about the viability of its democratic experiment. To ensure political stability, the constitution must be amended to bar both the dissolution of Parliament by the Prime Minister (PM) and no-confidence motions against the PM by the House during a government’s full term. A party securing a plurality of votes—for example, winning 40 out of 77 seats—should be allowed to form the government with a fixed five-year mandate. Such a reform would recalibrate Nepal’s political trajectory, curb judicial overreach, strengthen governance, stabilize the executive, fuel economic growth, and restore public confidence in the political system.
The federal parliament should be unicameral with a uninomial electoral system, considering the 77 districts as 77 constituencies for directly elected MPs. The proportional representation system should be reviewed, the provinces should be scrapped, and the number of local governments should be halved. At the current monthly salary of Rs 90,070 per MP, downsizing the federal parliament, eliminating the provinces, and halving local units could save over Rs 278 million, Rs 523 million, and Rs 800 million annually, respectively. Altogether, over Rs 1.6 billion could be saved annually, excluding administrative overhead, infrastructure, vehicles, fuel, and travel costs. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. With these savings, Nepal could provide free education and healthcare within a few years.
It is urgent to elevate the quality of leadership. During the Rana regime, there was a scarcity of educated people, and whoever was willing to participate in politics was given opportunities. Time has changed. Candidates for parliamentary elections must hold at least a Master’s degree, and local representatives must be college graduates. A jail sentence and party membership must not be the primary qualifications for political office. MPs must be barred from holding ministerial positions, as this violates the principle of separation of powers and fosters conflicts of interest. Instead, ministers should be selected from outside the legislature, based on merit and integrity.
Nepal’s executive branch is gargantuan and features unregulated tenures, which has morphed it into an employment scheme for party loyalists. When politics becomes a livelihood, governance becomes an afterthought. It is high time Nepal instituted a strict two-term limit for all elected positions—from the President to ward representatives. Public office should be a temporary stewardship, not a lifelong entitlement. Rotational leadership would inject fresh energy, reduce entrenchment, and create space for younger, capable leaders long sidelined by seniority politics.
All deputy posts, from the Vice President to the rural municipality vice-chair, should be removed. Nepal needs fewer titles and more results. At the federal government level, there should be no more than 15 ministries, including the Office of the Prime Minister. Provisions for Deputy PM, Assistant Minister, Minister of State, and Minister without Portfolio should be ditched, as they serve merely as bargaining chips in coalition negotiations. A lean horse runs longer.
Abolish unnecessary commissions and stop appointing former bureaucrats to any commission or government office. Appointees to such offices must have at least a Master’s degree. Anyone convicted of a criminal offense must never be allowed to contest elections or hold office. No nation can rise above the character of its leaders. Without sweeping reforms, the criminalization of politics and the politicization of crime will continue unabated, making a farce of the rule of law. Strip the President of the prerogative to grant pardons or to suspend, commute, or remit any sentence passed by a court or judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative body, as this legitimizes impunity.
Ensure Party Democracy
Nepal’s political parties remain undemocratic. Leaders tend to cling to power. Pushpa Kamal Dahal, coordinator of the Nepali Communist Party (NCP), an amalgamation of smaller left parties, has been at the helm for more than 35 years. Recently, KP Sharma Oli, Chairman of the CPN-UML, publicly warned against thinking of an alternative to him as party chair for the coming 20-25 years and maneuvered the party to elect himself as chairman for a third consecutive term. This pattern is mirrored across the political spectrum, from the oldest to the newest formations. The same few individuals rotate power among themselves, denying fresh voices and suppressing internal dissent. Where there is no room for challenge, there is no space for change.
The disease is acute among the fringe parties in the Tarai. Leaders split parties not on ideological grounds but to crown themselves as chairs of ever-shrinking fiefdoms. Leadership contests are rare; coronations are the norm. When power becomes hereditary and parties resemble family firms, democracy within dies quietly. Even emerging outfits have quickly inherited the same undemocratic DNA. The Rastriya Swatantra Party—born out of disillusionment with the status quo—has already slid into a personality cult. Its chair, Ravi Lamichhane, convicted in criminal cases, still commands blind loyalty. His inner circle goes so far as to declare that he will remain party head for life.
Anyone who dares question leadership is either suspended or expelled from a party. In parties where chairs reign for life, accountability dies in silence. Without term and age limits, and transparent leadership transitions, political parties will remain private clubs masquerading as public institutions. No person should be allowed to serve more than two terms in a post at any level of party structure.
Raise the Electoral Threshold
There are 136 registered political parties in Nepal, plus many unregistered or ideologically-driven groups. One of the main culprits of a fractured parliament is the large number of parties that win a few seats in federal elections, occasioning 'horse-trading' and oversized councils of ministers, tainting politics as a whole. This turns politics into a business venture where parties seem to operate more for personal gain than the public good.
By contrast, developed nations like the United States operate with only two major political parties—Democrats and Republicans—along with a handful of minor parties. This allows for the formation of single-party governments which are more efficient and can take bold decisions. With fewer parties, the US has avoided the political instability that plagues Nepal. The more parties, the greater the chance of a hung parliament. And hung parliaments have been creating, aggravating, and perpetuating political instability and serving as a breeding ground for high-level corruption.
Therefore, it has become inevitable to raise the electoral threshold. Only those parties that secure 10% of the vote in an election should be allowed to contest future elections. Raising the threshold would increase the likelihood of one party gaining enough seats to form a majority government without the constant need for coalition formation. The proliferation of parties—frequently born from personality clashes or factional ambitions rather than ideological divergence—has turned Nepal’s politics into a theater of convenience. With the Election Act and the Election Commission’s lax criteria for registration, political entrepreneurship has flourished. The result is chronic volatility: coalition governments stitched together by transactional alliances. Governance becomes an afterthought in the race to appease the demands of multiple, often conflicting, micro-constituencies.
The increased threshold would also pave the way for more coherent governance and the merger of smaller, often ineffective parties with larger political forces representing basically left and democratic ideologies. The merger of parties would create a more stable and united political force, capable of implementing policy and focusing on the people’s needs instead of the demands of countless factions. A raised threshold would contribute significantly to reducing political instability. It is high time for a course correction. Otherwise, the cacophony of overrepresentation will continue to overwhelm the symphony of good governance.
Conclusion
What is needed is a call for sweeping reforms: reducing political representation, abolishing provinces, halving local units, raising the electoral threshold, enforcing term limits, professionalizing leadership, and democratizing political parties. Only by downsizing the government, curbing patronage, and prioritizing merit and accountability can Nepal achieve stability, restore public trust, and redirect resources toward education, health, and economic growth—transforming its democracy from an expensive façade into a functional system that truly serves the people.
