Neglected provinces: Five key reasons behind public discontent
The GenZ uprising of Sept 8-9 has reignited debate over the relevance of Nepal’s federal governance system. Calls are growing to dismantle the provincial structure and empower local levels further. At the same time, a parallel public sentiment questions whether seeking alternatives to federalism is premature. Political and social representatives emerging after the movement have openly presented divergent perspectives on the issue.
Nepal formally adopted a federal system with the 2015 Constitution, which came into full implementation in 2018. While federalism had been sporadically discussed in earlier debates, the Madhes movement and other ethnic-regional agitations following the 2007 Interim Constitution were pivotal in institutionalizing it. Political parties of that era accepted federalism under pressure to pacify unrest and restore stability. It is therefore indisputable that federalism in Nepal was not a spontaneously embraced principle but a system established through struggle.
Against this backdrop, dissatisfaction with the provincial setup, considered the “soul” of federalism, has emerged as a pressing subject for analysis. Why has public support for provinces eroded so rapidly? This question lies at the heart of the ongoing national debate: Why are the provinces neglected?
An ambiguous role
Nepal’s Constitution clearly delineates powers and responsibilities among the federal, provincial and local levels, including both shared and exclusive authorities. Despite these clear provisions and subsequent functional reports further clarifying them, the federal government has failed to sufficiently empower the provinces.
The Constitution restricts provinces from enacting laws that contradict federal legislation. Yet, because the federal parliament has delayed passing or amending necessary laws, provinces were left in a prolonged legal vacuum. Consequently, they began drafting their own legislation. For instance, the Federal Civil Service Act is still pending, whereas provinces have already enacted their civil and local service laws, creating legal inconsistencies that have reached the Constitutional Bench.
Fiscal federalism has similarly suffered. Major taxes and large infrastructure projects remain under federal control, preventing provinces from achieving financial self-reliance and making them dependent on federal grants. This situation has raised questions about the federal government’s genuine commitment to federalism. Administrative disruptions, particularly in personnel adjustment, have compounded the problem. Forced adjustment often met with resistance undermined the provinces’ ability to implement federalism effectively. The failure to stabilize the administrative backbone weakened the system’s overall efficacy.
Provinces’ weaknesses
In the initial phase, provincial governments appeared relatively agile and committed. Small seven-member cabinets functioned despite limited staff and legal gaps. Over time, some of these challenges got resolved, but then the provinces began replicating the federal government’s problematic practices.
Unnecessary expansion of ministries, oversized cabinets, bloated advisory bodies and costly administrative setups increased recurrent expenditures without producing tangible improvements in citizens’ lives. Provincial legislators frequently engaged in party splits and political maneuvering to secure positions and power—further eroding public trust. Corruption and uncontrolled benefits by political personalities amplified public criticism.
Government change in the Center also affected provincial stability. Governments were formed or dissolved at the federal leadership’s signal, weakening provincial autonomy. As a result, provincial administrations—the intended embodiments of federalism, began operating under external influence, failing to establish themselves as credible institutions in the public eye.
Judiciary’s ineffective role
Scholars have long expected the judiciary to guide provinces to become stronger and more capable through clear constitutional interpretation. Judicial decisions significantly shape federal practices, yet courts have failed to safeguard provincial autonomy adequately.
Most of the cases accusing the federal government of unnecessary interference or lack of facilitation have remained unresolved. Decisions, when issued, lack uniformity. For example, cases filed by the Madhesh Province Government over the Sagarnath forest project or staff adjustments have remained unresolved for seven years. Supreme Court rulings on the Gandaki Province government formation have given rise to significant legal disagreements. Differing court orders on writs filed by transferred civil servants further entrenched uncertainty for provincial governments and employees.
Such inconsistencies have reinforced the perception that centralized thinking dominates the judiciary. The courts’ failure to act as constitutional guardians of provincial stability is a major factor impacting public confidence in the federal system.
Irresponsible media
Mainstream media could have played a pivotal role in consolidating federalism. Instead, driven by TRP (Target Rating Point) competition, sensationalism often eclipsed informed reporting.
Positive provincial initiatives such as investments in social sectors, improvements in human development indicators and tourism promotion have received limited attention. In contrast, stories on cabinet reshuffles, ministerial lifestyles and petty scandals got amplified, fostering negative perceptions of the provincial structure.
While corruption has existed historically, media reports often exaggerated its prevalence only after the formation of provincial governments. Pro-federal voices were relegated to minor columns, while anti-federal perspectives dominated front pages. This biased information flow heightened public dissatisfaction and distrust toward provincial governments.
Influence multiplied
In today’s digital age, social media amplifies public discourse alongside traditional media. Activists and influencers compete for followers and views, often overlooking positive provincial initiatives. Single mistakes are sensationalized, analyzed from multiple angles and sometimes mixed with fabricated claims.
This flood of misinformation and malinformation leaves citizens unable to discern fact from fiction. Provincial governance is inherently the most challenging layer of the federal system for public comprehension. While it takes time to demonstrate necessity and effectiveness, various interest groups have exploited this period to magnify weaknesses and advance their agendas. Misleading campaigns have significantly contributed to public neglect of provinces.
Conclusion
Federalism forms the backbone of Nepal’s constitutional, political, and administrative framework. It was introduced not merely for administrative convenience but to ensure inclusive governance that accommodates Nepal’s diverse social, cultural and regional realities. Today’s imperative is not to dismantle provinces but to reform them—creating lean, efficient and results-oriented provincial structures. Through improved, citizen-centric federal practices, provincial governments can regain public confidence and become foundational pillars in building a tolerant society and a prosperous Nepal.
