Submit your Article

Nepal should reconsider its long-standing practice of appointing ministers from sitting MPs. Such changes are not just desirable—they are inevitable—given the mounting evidence of political instability if the country is to preserve the integrity of its parliamentary system and respond to growing public discontent. The Constitution of Nepal also allows for the selection of ministers from among MPs, and requires those appointed from outside parliament to secure membership within six months.

Corruption, patronage politics and weak legislative scrutiny have also increased as the country grapples with an alarming increase in election spending. Once MPs become ministers, they become entangled in the executive branch, reducing their ability and willingness to hold the government accountable. Moreover, since political positions are viewed as investments rather than responsibilities, the lure of ministerial appointments encourages excessive spending on parliamentary election campaigns.

In light of these anomalies, it is time to rethink this constitutional arrangement. Barring members of the House of Representatives from assuming ministerial positions would create a clear separation of powers, reduce political conflicts of interest and discourage the monetization of elections. Appointing ministers from outside parliament based on expertise and merit is the need of the hour. Doing so can help strengthen governance and restore citizens’ trust in Nepal’s democratic institutions.

A vicious cycle

Nepal’s elections are so expensive that only those with the support of wealthy or powerful donors can compete effectively. According to reports, despite our low GDP and per capita income, Nepal’s elections are estimated to be 147 times more expensive than those in neighboring India. Candidates for the 2022 general election have been reported to have taken on large amounts of personal debt or relied on opaque funding sources.

This financial burden does not end with victory. Elected members of the House of Representatives, who are deeply in debt from campaigns funded by private donations, often view ministerial appointments as a way to make up for the shortfall. Ministerial positions come with significant perks—salaries, allowances, and influence over budgets and contracts—that can be used for personal gains. When donors, often businesses or contractors, expect policy favors or government tenders, the stage is set for institutionalized corruption.

Corruption would be reduced if members of the House of Representatives were barred from becoming ministers. The parliamentary role alone reduces the opportunities for recovering the financial investments made in elections. Instead, candidates can focus on policy and public service, potentially reducing overall election costs through greater transparency and public financing reforms advocated by experts.

Erosion of accountability

Corruption in Nepal is not just an aberration but a systemic scourge that permeates every level of government. Transparency International’s 2024 Corruption Perceptions Index gave Nepal a dismal score of 34 out of 100, ranking it 100th out of 180 countries globally.

Political scandals abound. Senior politicians have been implicated in scams such as the fake Bhutanese refugee scam. In 2025 alone, more than a dozen high-profile cases involving former prime ministers and ministers in corruption came to light. These cases were at the center of the GenZ protests earlier this year. They exposed decades of systemic decay.

Appointing members of the House of Representatives as ministers exacerbates this by blurring the lines between the legislature and the executive, weakening the separation of powers necessary for checks and balances. This leads to incomplete separation, legislative flip-flopping and democratic unaccountability.

Parliament’s oversight and monitoring role is weakened when MPs play a dual role as ministers. Who checks on this when members of the executive are also legislators? This creates fertile ground for corruption. Ministers can influence resource allocations, agreements and policies without strong parliamentary oversight.

The legislature could reclaim its role as a watchdog by reserving ministerial positions for technocrats or experts from outside parliament.

In Nepal, this could disrupt the “vicious cycle” where high election costs push politicians into ministerial positions for corrupt gains, as noted in the analysis of campaign finance.

A path forward

The recent youth protests that forced a change of government in less than 28 hours on charges of corruption signal a public mandate for systemic change.

The political upheaval reflects a powerful public demand for deep, structural reforms. This uprising has exposed a critical truth that Nepal’s democratic institutions can no longer function effectively under the old structures that reward money, favoritism and power-brokers in public service.

In this context, the proposal to bar members of the House of Representatives (HoR) from appointing ministers is not an attack on the parliamentary system but a step toward strengthening it. Such a reform would encourage political parties to elect parliamentarians who are truly committed to their legislative duties, while also enabling the formation of an executive.

Implementing this reform may ultimately require constitutional amendments to formalize the separation of legislative and executive responsibilities. Prioritizing non-parliamentarians in cabinet formation and making appointments based on merit could initiate positive change through political practice.

Nepal can no longer sustain a system where skyrocketing election costs and widespread corruption reinforce each other. By clearly separating membership in the House of Representatives from ministerial ambitions, the country must remove financial incentives that distort democratic competition. This can strengthen accountability and rebuild trust in public institutions. The Election Commission and the interim government must recognize the urgency of reform. They must act decisively for the nation’s democratic future. Otherwise, another wave of citizen-led opposition may begin.

The maxim that democracy should not collapse even if the parliament collapses is the essence of a democratic system worth its name. This makes all the more sense at a time when Nepal’s political transition has reached a strange turning point yet again. There was no dearth of people, who expected the dissolution of the House of Representatives, the lower chamber of the bicameral parliament, to give the country caught in a crisis situation a new direction. Contrary to their expectations, Nepal finds herself trapped in a parliamentary paradox where the parliament is simultaneously “in existence” and “non-existent.”

Four ‘constitutional figures’ stand at the center of this paradox or, say, constitutional crisis:

• The Prime Minister, who is not a member of the parliament,
• The Speaker, who continues to hold office even after the dissolution of the House of Representatives
• The National Assembly, the upper chamber of the parliament, is still active, and
• The President, who is constitutionally a part of the parliament, remains in power

All these four figures represent the unstable and constitutionally complex political situation of Nepal.

Government sans parliament

President Ramchandra Paudel, while appointing Sushila Karki as the Prime Minister of the Interim Council of Ministers on Sept 12 as per Article 61(4) of the Constitution, has relied on the provisions of the existing Constitution while setting a deadline of six months for holding elections to the House of Representatives. According to the said provision, the Prime Minister can remain in office for a maximum of six months even if he is not a member of Parliament. However, in the current political situation, that deadline has become more of a political issue than a legal one.

In order to address the peculiar and extraordinary political situation that has emerged in the country and to respectfully address the aspirations and expectations for change expressed by the current young generation, the President has appointed Sushila Karki as the Head of the Interim Government after necessary consultations and discussions with various political parties and stakeholders. This decision has been taken as an attempt to lead the country towards stability on the constitutional path and end the current political deadlock. 

Prime Minister Karki was appointed in the unusual situation arising from the current political crisis, dissolution of Parliament, and lack of executive leadership, in response to the demands for political reform and change that emerged after the GenZ movement of Sept 8-9. The interim government has been formed in accordance with the Doctrine of Necessity as a temporary arrangement to lead the country towards stability and elections before the formation of a permanent government.

Speaker with a limited role

This is not the first time in Nepal’s parliamentary history that the Speaker has remained in office even after the dissolution of the House of Representatives. Even after King Gyanendra Shah dissolved the House of Representatives on 22 May 2002, Speaker Taranath Ranabhat remained in office for almost four years—till 28 April 2006. The first meeting of the restored House of Representatives held the same day, after the success of the Second People’s Movement-2006, steered Nepal’s democratic journey in a new direction.

A situation similar to this seems to be in place at present. Even after the dissolution of the lower chamber, Speaker Devraj Ghimire remains in office, though with a limited role, sparking a politico-constitutional debate.

Half a legislature?

Despite the dissolution of the House of Representatives, the National Assembly still exists, which reflects a kind of institutional continuity. But this continuity is not based on full legitimacy, because when only half of the Parliament is active, the parliamentary system remains only on paper. The National Assembly can discuss and make suggestions, but in the absence of the House of Representatives, it cannot make or pass laws. Therefore, the current situation has become a mixture of an incomplete parliament and a constitutional crisis, weakening the balance of the federal governance structure, where the core spirit of people’s representation—the direct voice of the people and participation in the decision-making process—has become inactive. 

As a result, the people’s control over policymaking and governance—through elected representatives—is eroding, thereby raising questions on the credibility of democratic institutions and the spirit of the Constitution.

A decisive role, limited powers 

Although the Constitution of Nepal grants the President only formal and limited powers, his role can become particularly important in unusual political situations. When both the executive and the legislature are caught in uncertainty, the president has the potential to become the decisive force in maintaining the “constitutional balance.” In the current situation, the president’s decisions, consultations or silence will directly affect Nepal’s political course. The president’s move—either to act in defense of the constitution, democratic values and national unity or to remain inactive—will determine the course of the country’s governance structure and stability in the coming months.

What after 5 March 2026?

Nepal’s political future now seems to depend on the general elections slated for 5 March 2026. If the vote takes place on time and in a free and fair manner, the country can embark on a journey of stability and public trust. The emergence of a new leadership seems possible with the political consciousness of the new generation, the energy of the GenZ movement and the (re)awakening of civil society. But if the election gets postponed again or delayed due to political interests, the country will again fall into a cycle of constitutional vacuum and instability. In such a situation, the crisis of legitimacy will only deepen, raising crucial questions on the roles of the Prime Minister, the Speaker, the National Assembly chair and the President.

An acid test for democracy

Nepal’s democracy is once again facing a serious test today. It is a result of its own constitutional ambiguity and political insensitivity. The Prime Minister must obtain the mandate of the Parliament, the Speaker must preserve the dignity of the office, the National Assembly must show constitutional restraint, and the President must play a decisive role in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution. 5 March 2026 is not just an election date, it is a moment of re-evaluation of Nepal’s democracy. The country is at a critical juncture, where both the maturity of the leadership and the level of public trust will be measured. If this hour passes smoothly, democracy will be reborn, otherwise the republic will plunge into a serious crisis.

A series of instabilities and government changes that have recurred in Nepal’s political history have once again pushed the country toward the election path. There is a mixture of excitement and apprehension in political circles regarding the House of Representatives elections scheduled for March 5 next year. The elections will not be held as per the usual schedule, but have been announced after the dissolution of parliament as a result of the recent political crisis and youth movements. 

Background of the crisis

The government formed after the 2079 elections in Nepal did not complete its full term. In recent months, the country has been rocked by youth-led (Gen Z) protests. These protests were mainly against economic inequality, corruption, and unemployment, which claimed lives. This put pressure on the political leadership and ultimately led to the dissolution of parliament.

On Sept 13, President Ramchandra Paudel dissolved the House of Representatives on the recommendation of interim Prime Minister Sushila Karki, a retired Chief Justice. The decision paves the way for the country to hold elections within six months. The President has appealed to all parties to cooperate in making the elections a success. The elections will be held under a mixed electoral system, with 165 of the 275 seats being direct and 110 proportional.

The developments highlight Nepal's political instability. Nepal has seen 13 governments since 2008, which has affected development and stability. Youth movements have challenged traditional parties, and new political forces are likely to emerge through the upcoming vote.

Population and voter turnout

According to the 2022 census, Nepal’s total population is 29,192,480. The number of registered voters thus far is 17,988,570. This shows that about two-thirds of the population was of age to directly participate in the electoral process. But a large part of the population is still children or ineligible to vote. This fact indicates that a large part of the young generation will be decisive in building the future in a developing country like Nepal. The structure of the population is a factor that affects the election results in the long term.

Voter turnout

Altogether 61.85 percent of voters took part in the 2022 elections. Out of 17,988,570 registered voters, about 11,125,931 voted. This percentage is medium in the context of South Asian countries. This shows that the interest of Nepali citizens in the democratic process is still sufficient, but not completely satisfactory. About 38 percent of registered voters did not vote, suggesting that factors like dissatisfaction with political parties, weaknesses in the electoral system or socio-economic reasons may have kept the eligible voters away from the electoral process.

Absentee population and foreign employment

The most serious problem in the context of elections is the absentee population. It is currently estimated that about 3m-3.5m Nepali citizens work or live abroad. Most of these are youth, leaving a huge gap in the country’s productive workforce and democratic participation.

In the fiscal 2022-23 alone, 771,327 youth obtained permits for foreign employment. This figure clearly shows the intensity of the labor exodus from Nepal. These same youths, who could have played a significant role in shaping the country’s political future, were absent on the polling day. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that Nepal’s electoral system does not provide an opportunity for citizens abroad to vote. Many countries have made arrangements for their citizens who are abroad or working abroad to vote by mail, through embassies or through online systems. But because Nepal has failed to take steps in this area, the voices of about 20 percent of potential voters were not reflected in the election results.

Gap in representation

The absentee population has created a huge gap in democratic practice. Youth are the bearers of new ideas, policy reforms and long-term development. When they are excluded from the voting process, policies made in parliament cannot address their needs and priorities. In this way, it can be concluded that the 2022 election results were based on incomplete popular representation. Although the Election Commission officially showed a 61.85 percent turnout, this figure failed to include millions of citizens living abroad.

Lack of voting through reps

There was neither a system for voting from abroad in the 2022 election, nor a system for proxy voting. Therefore, the people absent from the country due to foreign employment or migration were deprived of the right to vote. This has weakened the guarantee of equal rights and participation enshrined in the Constitution of Nepal. Depriving people who have obtained citizenship but are living abroad from voting is a curtailment of civil rights.

Strategy of major parties

The major parties in the political landscape of Nepal are the Nepali Congress, Communist Party of Nepal (UML), the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Center) and other smaller parties. In the previous election, the Congress won 89 seats, the UML 78 and the Maoist Center 32 seats. But the current crisis has brought about a reshuffle in coalitions. 

Nepali Congress: This party represents democratic values ​​and could be influenced by the youth movement. Its base is strong in rural areas and the Madhesh, but corruption allegations have weakened it. The party is likely to raise economic reforms and employment as issues during the elections.

CPN-UML: Under the leadership of KP Oli, this party has emerged with a nationalist image. It has adopted a policy of balancing relations with India and China. The party has also been influenced by the youth movement, but its organizational strength is strong.

Maoist Center: Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s party emphasizes social justice, but frequent coalition changes have eroded its credibility.

Against this backdrop, coalitions will be crucial. As in the past, there is a possibility of bargaining to form a government after the elections. The interim government has claimed to make the elections fair, but the opposition calls it a plot to seize power.

Challenges and risks

The main challenges facing this election include political violence, economic crisis, ethnic and regional disparities, and election management. Violence during the youth movement could affect the vote, which could reduce voter turnout and increase the need for international observation. Nepal’s low GDP growth rate and high unemployment have led to an economic crisis, which could increase discontent if parties do not prioritize economic issues. Tensions between the Madhes and hilly regions have given rise to ethnic and regional disparities, which could raise questions about the legitimacy of the election if there is no inclusive representation. Also, the preparation of the Election Commission and the post-Covid health security situation could pose problems in election management, which could increase allegations of fraud.

These challenges have complicated the election. The interim government is trying to bring stability within six months, but the discontent of the younger generation could lead to new political changes.

A sense of the future

This election could take Nepal in two directions: on the one hand, a stable government and a leap forward in development, on the other, a return to instability. If the major parties address youth issues (employment, education, environment), they can gain support from the new generation. If new parties win more than 50 percent of the seats, a nationalist wave could emerge in Nepali politics. Ultimately, this election is a test of Nepal’s democracy. If all parties cooperate as the President has called for, it can succeed. But parties must be accountable to the people to break the cycle of corruption and instability. Nepal must seize this opportunity to chart a course toward stability and prosperity.