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.

China is recalibrating its Nepal policy in the aftermath of the GenZ protests that caught Beijing off guard. The demonstrations and widespread arson—unprecedented in scale—forced several countries, including China, to urgently evacuate their officials and citizens from Nepal.

Since the protests, Nepal-China relations have noticeably slowed. While other major countries such as India, the US, Japan, and members of the European Union have already resumed full engagement with the new government at multiple levels, interaction between Nepal and China has remained limited.

In the early days of the unrest, Beijing was particularly concerned about its security interests in Nepal. The fall of the KP Sharma Oli-led government was a troubling development for China. Until the Sept 8–9 protests, bilateral ties were progressing steadily. Just beforehand, China had invited Oli to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) meeting, where Nepal is a dialogue partner. Oli met President Xi Jinping on the sidelines, took part in China’s Victory Day parade, and earlier had signed the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) framework agreement during an official visit, an outcome that had energized Beijing’s engagement with Kathmandu. China was also preparing a five-year cooperation plan with Nepal and expanding support in agriculture, health, and other sectors. Its engagement with Nepali political parties, including the Nepali Congress, was also deepening.

The GenZ movement, however, appears to have triggered new anxieties in Beijing. Media reports alleging the involvement of Tibetan Original Blood (TOB) raised concerns about external influence. Some left-leaning political leaders further fueled this by suggesting geopolitical motives behind the protests. Additional reports that the government was considering appointing youth leaders allegedly close to the Dalai Lama heightened Beijing’s unease.

Compounding these tensions, the Sushila Karki-led transitional government decided to recall Nepal’s Ambassador to China, Krishna Prasad Oli, who is close to the dismissed prime minister Oli. It did not, however, recall the Ambassador to India, Shankar Sharma. China’s displeasure was evident: notably, the Chinese premier did not send a congratulatory message to Prime Minister Karki, an unprecedented break from diplomatic tradition.

Amid this uncertainty, China moved quickly to protect what it views as its security interests. Ambassador Chen Song raised concerns with top Nepali officials, including Prime Minister Karki and senior officials at the Foreign Ministry. They assured Beijing that the new government remains fully committed to the One-China policy, as previous governments had been.

Chinese officials were encouraged by support from Nepali political leaders, the public, and sections of the media who echoed China’s concerns. In a recent meeting with journalists, Ambassador Chen Song said: “The current government’s commitment to the One-China principle is not less than that of the previous government.”

With these assurances, Beijing’s immediate worries appear to have eased, though several Chinese delegations have since arrived in Nepal to assess the situation firsthand.

Regarding the GenZ movement and upcoming elections, Ambassador Chen has conveyed to Nepali leaders that China will not interfere in domestic political affairs and respects decisions made by the Nepali people. At the same time, Beijing has pledged support for Nepal’s reconstruction and electoral processes.

However, China does not appear optimistic about achieving tangible progress under the interim government, particularly on BRI-related initiatives. Although China continues to work on BRI projects from its side, meaningful progress remains unlikely. Many of the 10 selected projects are seen as unproductive, shaped largely by the political interests of major parties. Still, China’s growing engagement in Nepal’s health and education sectors is expected to continue.

The GenZ protests have also affected tourism cooperation. China had declared 2025 as Nepal Visit Year, but Chinese tourist numbers have sharply declined. Before the protests, the two countries were deepening collaboration on tourism promotion, but the political upheaval has significantly disrupted momentum, and officials expect a further drop in Chinese arrivals in the coming months.

For now, China’s approach appears to be maintaining a working relationship with the Karki administration, prioritising the protection of its core interests while keeping expectations low on broader bilateral progress.

The Election Commission (EC) has notified that it will register voters till Nov 21. The date has been extended in response to a request from Prime Minister Sushila Karki in view of the heavy turnout of voters for registration. Despite the two-shift registration of voters, long queues for registration may be due to the apathy of the EC at the time of annual updating of voter list by including eligible voters seriously on the one hand and the apathy among the voters toward registration, on the other. 

It is worth mentioning here that previously for a citizen to get his name registered in the voter list he had to submit only his citizenship certificate, which was provided by the District Administration Office and that was done at the village level itself. The introduction of the new system of giving biometric data at the District Election Office (DEO) for registration has discouraged many eligible voters. A majority of the voters, who are out of their native places for jobs, education and other purposes, do not prefer to visit the DEO to register themselves by visiting the DEO, which means a certain disruption in their daily schedule.  

Sadly, a citizen has to visit the district headquarters three times, first, for obtaining citizenship certificate, then for voter registration and lastly for getting the National Identity Card. Interestingly, if biometric data are obtained at the time of issuing the citizenship certificate, a citizen has no need to visit the district headquarters time and again.  

If the government introduces a law to address this issue, it will reduce the government expenses by at least 66 percent by curtailing unnecessary staff engaged in this task. At the time, the citizens will get some relief as they won’t have to undertake a strenuous journey to the district headquarters, especially in the hilly and high mountain religions. 

Like many other countries, there are two types of migrant voters in Nepal. First, those who are migrant workers working outside the country. Their number is anticipated to be 5-6m leaving apart about 2m voters living in India. The second type of voters are internal migrants whose number is also believed to be about 1-1.5m. 

A significant number of such voters include those who are registered but are unable to vote at the fixed place, date and time. The data show that out of a 30m population only 18.2m voters are registered and with the latest addition it will reach 18.5m. Interestingly, out of 18.2m voters, hardly 12.5m voters cast their votes and about 0.6m of these votes become invalid. Most of the internal migrant voters do not  cast their votes, explaining, in part, the poor turnout of voters. Since the EC has agreed to use biometric data from the National Certificate issuing office for registering the names, there is heavy rush of voters for registration.

Given this context, I humbly suggest some changes for increasing voting participation of GenZ and migrant workers abroad.

The EC has been authorized to hold polling in several phases (as per Clause 6.3 of the HoR  Election Act, 2017). It entails that it can advance partial voting as well, as per practice of several countries. It is called ‘advance voting’, ‘absent voting’and  ‘external voting, etc. If the EC decides, it can keep voting days open from the date symbols are distributed to the candidates, at least two days ahead of voting day (March 5) for those migrant workers who happen to be in the country during these 15 days, i.e, during the campaign period. The migrant workers won’t have to wait for March 5 to cast their votes. Even if it facilitates a few, that will create history for a democratic Nepal.

More significantly, it will facilitate those GenZ, who are in Kathmandu and other places inside the country in thousands, for their studies and all other purposes, together with the general voters who cannot vote in their home constituency being far away for different purposes. They can also cast their votes for their home constituencies. 

Those allowed to vote for the proportional representation (PR) segment have really been reduced to a status of 40 percent voters. If they can vote for their home constituency also, they will be 100 percent voters, as PR is meant for choosing a party and not the individual candidate. 

The PR segment is for ensuring 33 percent representation of women in the House of Representatives. Thus, it has become a women’s representation segment. This will also help those officials and staff engaged in voting management far away from their home constituencies.

This may revolutionize the voting pattern of the country. Of course, the EC has to get the ballot papers printed within a week by not depending solely on the Janak Educational Material Centre but also on other governmental and private printing presses by adhering to usual security measures.

The author is former election commissioner

Will the election take place on March 5 as announced by the government? It depends on whom you ask. If you ask ministers and government officials, they insist it will definitely happen.

If you speak with representatives of political parties, you get a mixed response. Many leaders of the CPN-UML reject outright the possibility of elections on March 5, arguing that the current government has no intention of holding them. The Nepali Congress does not oppose elections, but the party remains divided internally. Meanwhile, CPN (Maoist Center) Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal was the first among major parties to validate this government and publicly commit to supporting the elections.

Meanwhile, the GenZ groups, which are split into more than 40 factions, also remain divided. However, they share one common position: before holding elections, there must be an agreement between them and the government on institutionalizing the GenZ movement. Many groups are even refusing to participate, saying that joining elections without laying the groundwork for systemic change would be meaningless.

The international community is broadly in favor of holding the elections on time, emphasizing that they must be free and fair with a level playing field for all actors. Nepal’s neighbors, India and China, also support early elections, believing they will bring relative stability to Nepal. However, China stresses that major political parties must participate. UN Office in Kathmandu is in consultations with 

Kathmandu-based Ambassadors to make a common position on Nepal’s election.. 

Both the government and the Election Commission (EC) are pressing ahead with preparations. In a recent meeting with civil society leaders, Prime Minister Sushila Karki sounded confident that elections will take place, now only three months and nineteen days away. Government ministers and officials remain optimistic.

Security remains a key concern for the March 5 elections. The government says it is preparing a full-fledged security plan, seeking an increased role for the Nepali Army in the integrated security arrangement being drafted by the Ministry of Home Affairs. Regarding police logistics, officials say Nepal has already written to India and China seeking support, and they expect necessary supplies to arrive soon. Preparations are also underway to recruit temporary police personnel for the election period.

The EC is making all required preparations. The voter-list update is underway, with around 300,000 new voters already added. The EC has published the detailed election schedule, with nominations for both First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) and Proportional Representation (PR) beginning on Jan 20. Party registration is also ongoing. However, substantial dialogue between the government and political parties to create a conducive environment is lacking, though PM Karki is in regular contact with second-tier leaders of major parties.

The second-largest party, CPN-UML, rejects the possibility of elections entirely, claiming that the government intends to extend its tenure by repeatedly postponing elections, similar to what happened in Bangladesh. The UML is in talks with the Nepali Congress to forge a common position. The party argues that both should press for the restoration of Parliament, on which the Supreme Court has already begun hearings. The UML has rejected both the current government and the GenZ movement, insisting that all political processes, including elections, should begin only after Parliament is restored. Its dissolved parliament members are meeting daily. At the same time, Speaker Dev Raj Ghimire, also from UML, has strongly endorsed holding elections.

The Nepali Congress is embroiled in internal conflict tied directly to the elections. General Secretary Gagan Thapa wants the party to elect new leadership through a general convention before going to polls, while leaders aligned with Sher Bahadur Deuba want to hold the convention only after the elections. If elections are indeed happening on March 5, the NC is running out of time to organize its convention. There is, however, a strong sentiment within the party that it should participate in the elections to bring the constitution back on track.

CPN (Maoist Center) leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal, who initially sounded confident about the elections, has gradually shifted his stance and now says that political consensus is needed before moving ahead.

Amid such uncertainty, what are the possible scenarios for Nepal? The first scenario is the elections will take place on March 5 with participation from all political parties, including the UML. This is the ideal situation. If this happens, it would likely steer the country back onto the constitutional path and reduce internal party conflicts. The outcome could be the rise of new political forces, weakening the dominance of major parties like the NC, UML, and Maoists.

The second scenario is that the elections will be held without CPN-UML’s participation. This is possible, as there is sentiment within the government that if the NC participates, elections should proceed, even without the UML participation. However, this could trigger election-related violence, as the UML is likely to retaliate strongly. Compared to others, the UML has already revived its organizational structures from the center down to local levels and is actively mobilizing through street protests.

The third scenario is the government and political parties will agree to postpone the elections by a few months, ensuring participation of all major parties. Under this arrangement, the Karki government may continue, or a new consensus-based government could be formed to announce fresh election dates.

The fourth scenario is neither elections nor Parliament restoration will take place. This would invite deeper chaos and political instability, putting the constitution and the current system at serious risk.

For now, neither the government nor political leaders can completely dismiss the possibility of March 5 elections, nor can they confidently assert that the environment is conducive for holding them. Nepal has held elections amidst uncertainty before—in 2008, 2013, and 2017—and the same may yet happen again.