Submit your Article

With less than 120 days remaining for the March 5 elections announced by the government, the political and security environments are far from ready. The country’s security situation remains fragile, and the morale of security agencies—particularly the Nepal Police and the Armed Police Force (APF)—is notably low. Half of the inmates who escaped during the Sept 9 jailbreak have yet to be recaptured, and the looted weapons remain untraced.

Tensions also persist between political parties and some GenZ groups, while party leaders continue to express doubts about the overall security preparedness. The government has yet to unveil a clear election strategy, and crucial talks between top political parties and the government have not begun. Prime Minister Sushila Karki remains hesitant to meet major party leaders, deepening the political uncertainty.

Of the three major parties, the Maoist Center has decided to contest the elections, the Nepali Congress remains undecided and the CPN-UML is demanding the restoration of Parliament. Relations between the Karki-led government and CPN-UML are particularly strained. Without securing the confidence of the main political forces, it will be an uphill battle for the government to conduct credible elections.

Since assuming office, PM Karki has taken a rigid stance toward major political parties. While public sentiment may favor leadership changes within those parties, it is not the government’s role to dictate internal party affairs. Reports suggest the government is reaching out to mid- and lower-level leaders rather than engaging directly with top leadership—a fundamentally flawed approach that undermines trust.

The international community is closely observing whether this government can deliver elections on schedule. The primary mandate of the Karki administration is to hold timely and credible elections. Failure to do so will raise serious questions about the government’s legitimacy and purpose.

We urge the government to act swiftly, initiate dialogue with political parties and foster a conducive environment for the polls. The Election Commission must also actively coordinate with parties to ensure preparation and confidence. Nepal cannot afford another cycle of political instability driven by ego and mistrust. Political parties must act responsibly, but the ultimate responsibility lies with the government to lead decisively and ensure elections are held on time.

The largest party in the dissolved House of Representatives (HoR), the Nepali Congress (NC), is embroiled in an internal rift over whether to convene the party’s convention to elect a new leadership.

The party’s youth leaders are demanding that the convention be held before the next election, arguing that the NC should go to the polls with new leadership and renewed energy. However, the establishment faction, led by Vice-president Purna Bahadur Khadka, prefers to hold the convention after the election. The party has faced growing criticism for failing to take initiative to resolve the ongoing political stalemate, appearing instead preoccupied with its internal disputes. The rift has laid bare the ongoing struggle between the party’s second- and third-tier leaders for control of its future direction.

Senior figures such as Khadka, Prakash Man Singh, Krishna Prasad Sitaula and Bimalendra Nidhi are reportedly intent on preventing Gagan Kumar Thapa from ascending to the party presidency. Thapa, however, remains firm in his intention to contest. In the absence of Sher Bahadur Deuba, the NC is facing a clear leadership vacuum as intergenerational rivalries intensify. Meanwhile, senior leader Shekhar Koirala has chosen to remain silent amid the escalating discord.

In contrast, the CPN-UML appears to be making steady progress toward its general convention, scheduled for mid-December. Initially, the party planned to hold the convention in Pokhara but later shifted the venue to Kathmandu due to party Chair KP Sharma Oli’s travel restrictions. Although some voices within the UML had earlier urged Oli to step aside, those calls have largely faded. A few leaders still argue that the party should not go into the elections under Oli’s leadership, but he has made it clear that he intends to contest at the General Convention.

Some party members have proposed that former President Bidya Devi Bhandari’s membership be reinstated so she could take over the UML leadership after Oli, but he has shown no inclination to welcome her back. On national politics, the UML maintains that the only viable path forward is to briefly restore Parliament to legitimize the election process. Meanwhile, tensions between Prime Minister Sushila Karki and the UML continue to grow. Oli believes he is being directly targeted by the government and fears possible arrest.

Amid this shifting political landscape, a growing number of GenZ activists have entered the scene. They are engaging with political parties, civil society and business groups, though the government and established parties find it difficult to work with them due to their lack of unified positions. Rather than coalescing around shared reform agendas such as anti-corruption or governance reform, many GenZ figures appear increasingly motivated by personal political ambitions. An unhealthy competition has emerged among them to secure ministerial positions or advance individual agendas, while some remain openly hostile toward traditional political parties.

Seeking to consolidate his base after recent turmoil, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, chair of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Center), has brought together 10 communist parties to form a new organization under the old banner, the Nepali Communist Party. Meanwhile, the CPN (Unified Socialist) led by Madhav Kumar Nepal is fragmenting. One faction has merged with Dahal, another is preparing to rejoin the UML, and a third, led by Ghanashyam Bhushal, plans to form a separate political force. Within the Maoist Center itself, Janardhan Sharma has resigned protesting against the unification, and is reportedly in talks with other leaders to create a new political party.

In an effort to create momentum for elections, Prime Minister Karki has held consultations with former presidents Ram Baran Yadav and Bidya Devi Bhandari. She appears to believe they could help facilitate dialogue among top political leaders. However, without direct engagement between the prime minister and major party heads, progress toward a conducive electoral environment remains uncertain.

Meanwhile, controversial businessperson Durga Prasai is preparing to launch a street movement calling for the restoration of monarchy and the Hindu state. The government is concerned that his activities could disturb public order, especially given that protests he organized in March turned violent. Authorities have invited him for dialogue, as his influence appears to be growing, particularly after Prime Minister Karki made conciliatory remarks about him and the Nepali Army invited him to consultations as a “stakeholder.”

With less than 120 days remaining before the March 5 elections, the Ministry of Home Affairs is currently drafting an integrated security plan to safeguard the electoral process. So far, the government has yet to ensure a stable political and security environment. This has fueled speculation about potential successors should Prime Minister Karki fail to conduct the elections. Names such as Baburam Bhattarai and Kalyan Shrestha have surfaced as possible candidates. 

Adding to the tension, the Supreme Court recently issued an interim order restraining the government from implementing its decision to recall 11 ambassadors. The government, however, has defied the order, insisting the ambassadors return to Nepal, citing a lack of trust. This defiance has sparked a broader debate over the balance of power between the executive and the judiciary.

Strains between the government and Parliament are also deepening. HoR Speaker Devraj Ghimire has accused the interim government of acting against the legislature and its members. In a meeting with journalists at Singhadurbar, Ghimire said the government appears intent on weakening the parliamentary system. His statement was prompted by the government’s decision to remove personal secretaries of the Deputy Speaker, Vice-chairperson of the National Assembly and 58 National Assembly members.

Earlier this week, Prime Minister Karki met with chief ministers of all seven provinces. The provincial heads objected to several recent federal decisions that they claimed infringed on their constitutional powers. The meeting also touched upon election preparedness and coordination between federal and provincial governments.

Following the GenZ protests, the number of political parties in Nepal continues to rise. As of now, 18 new parties are awaiting registration with the Election Commission (EC). The most recent application is from the Nepali Communist Party, bringing the total number of registration requests to 18. Before the GenZ movement, only nine such applications had been filed, while the rest followed in its aftermath. Currently, 125 political parties have already obtained official registration certificates from the EC.

Scheduled to convene in the Amazon city of Belém from Nov 10–21, COP30 is being regarded as a pivotal summit. This session marks the 10th anniversary of the Paris Agreement and introduces Brazil’s new climate priorities, including a focus on tropical forests, alongside the “Baku to Belém” roadmap for raising $1.3trn per year by 2035 for climate action in developing countries. Host Brazil has dubbed the event ‘Global Mutirão’, a call for collective effort. 

In addition to global goals on adaptation and mitigation, COP30 will press major emitters to close longstanding finance gaps and set firmer targets for the world’s most vulnerable communities.

The team of the Ministry of Forests and Environment led by Secretary Rajendra Prasad Mishra is already in Brazil for the preparations. Also, Minister for Agriculture and Livestock Development Madan Prasad Pariyar will lead the ministerial delegation to COP30. Officials have held phased consultations with government agencies, civil society and development partners to finalize a national position for COP30. 

This year, a very small team will represent Nepal at COP. The decision comes in line with the Sept 21 Cabinet meeting, led by interim Prime Minister Sushila Karki, to curb non-essential overseas travel and limit official delegations. To cut government expenses, the government has capped heads of state or government-led delegations at 10 members and limited other government-sponsored teams to only three members.

Organizers hope this year’s COP will deliver both financial commitments and concrete actions to advance the goals set at previous meetings, branding it the “Implementation COP.” However, achieving this will be challenging due to reduced participation from the world’s largest emitters. The heads of the three biggest polluters—China, the United States, and India—will be notably absent. President Donald Trump, who withdrew the US from the Paris Agreement on his first day in office, will not send any senior officials, while China will be represented by Deputy Prime Minister Ding Xuexiang.

A week earlier, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the International Water Management Institute (IWMI), and Prakriti Resource Centre (PRC) organized a two-day Climate Negotiation Training to strengthen the negotiation skills, knowledge, and preparedness of Nepal’s inclusive climate negotiation team. The training aimed to enhance their capacity to effectively represent national priorities and perspectives in international climate discussions.

Nepal plans to highlight outcomes from its Sagarmatha Sambaad held on May 16-18, which produced a 25-point ‘Sagarmatha Call’ urging stronger mountain conservation and climate action. In particular, Nepal’s COP30 agenda will stress the needs of Himalayan countries, emphasizing glacier preservation, water security, and mountain biodiversity, as well as core United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) issues such as the Global Stocktake, finance, adaptation, mitigation and Article 6 carbon markets. The draft climate position paper covers nine themes from loss and damage to gender and youth, reflecting Nepal’s status as a Least Developed Country facing acute climate risks. The issues of climate transparency, capacity building and technology transfer, and climate justice are also priorities 

The government says it will present a ‘national document’ at COP30 listing key priorities: climate finance, loss-and-damage, adaptation, mitigation and technology transfer for mountain regions. 

In line with UNFCCC requirements, Nepal is revising its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) for 2035. Its recently published NDC 3.0 raises Nepal’s ambition in clean energy, cooking and transport, agriculture, forestry and other land use, waste and urban sectors. Nepal commits to reduce net greenhouse-gas emissions by 17.12 percent by 2030 and 26.79 percent by 2035 relative to a business-as-usual baseline, targets that are almost entirely conditional on receiving international climate finance. 

The government estimates these mitigation efforts will require about $73.7bn through 2035, only 14.7 percent of which Nepal can fund domestically. Nepal also reaffirmed its long-term goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 (as announced at COP26), aiming for “net-zero emissions” with enhanced forest sinks.

Nepal’s energy strategy centers on renewable power. Nearly 100 percent of its electricity already comes from hydropower, and the country has accelerated hydropower and solar projects in recent years. The country plans an all-electric vehicle fleet by 2031 as it pushes to phase out petrol and diesel transport. Despite these efforts, analysts caution that Nepal’s actions must be matched by finance: as experts note, Kathmandu will press at COP30 for “global compensation for climate loss” and for simpler, grant-based funding mechanisms to help low-income countries like Nepal cope with impacts.

Nepal faces severe climate vulnerabilities despite negligible historical emissions. The country’s dramatic topography, from the southern Tarai plains to the towering Himalaya,  is already showing stress. 

Long-term trends are alarming. Glaciers in Nepal’s high mountains are melting rapidly. A 2023 report by ICIMOD and Himalayan scientists warns that at current warming trajectories, the Hindu Kush Himalaya glaciers could lose up to 75 percent of their ice by 2100. 

“The Least Developed Countries (LDC) Group has set clear priorities for COP30, focusing on three main areas: Climate Finance, Ambition for 1.5°C, and Adaptation,” Environment Secretary Rajendra Prasad Mishra told ApEx, sharing the outcomes of the LDC Group meeting.

On climate finance, he said, “We aim to triple adaptation finance to at least $3bn under the LDCF-GEF-9 cycle, which is a crucial step toward addressing the estimated $120bn annual adaptation costs. We also support the implementation of the New Collective Quantified Goal on climate finance as part of the broader $1.3trn roadmap, and emphasize the need for a clear definition of climate finance.”

Speaking on the 1.5°C goal, Mishra added, “The group calls for urgent responses to the NDC Synthesis Report, the first Global Stocktake, and the Mitigation Work Programme to keep the 1.5°C target on track. We are proposing a Belém Roadmap to revisit 2035 NDCs, ensuring they align with this target, and we stress enhanced support for the implementation of all Nationally Determined Contributions.”

On adaptation, he said, “We are pushing for the adoption of a comprehensive list of indicators with strong ‘Means of Implementation’ coverage, and the launch of fast-track funding for National Adaptation Plans by 2030. Many of these priorities will be advanced through a Cover Decision at COP30.”

He also highlighted additional priorities: “The LDC Group seeks outcomes on Just Transition, predictable funding under the Forest and Land Restoration and Deforestation (FRLD) program, full implementation of the Technology Implementation Programme and National Technology Needs Assessments, strengthened delivery by the Climate Technology Centre and Network, review of capacity-building frameworks, and finalization of the Gender Action Plan. It is critical that the special circumstances of LDCs are recognized across all thematic areas to ensure they receive the support and funding needed to tackle the climate crisis effectively.”

At the Sagarmatha Dialogue earlier in 2025, official statements stressed that climate change threatens “the well-being of present and future generations” and undermines mountain communities even though they “contribute negligibly to global greenhouse gas emissions”. Officials and experts have repeatedly called for simpler access to climate funds, grant-based financing, and operationalization of the new Loss and Damage Fund agreed at COP29. In Kathmandu, UN agencies and think tanks echo these calls. UNDP experts advise that Nepal should press “for global compensation for climate loss” at COP30 while also building domestic policy and capacity to use funds efficiently.

Local scientists and NGOs are equally vocal. For example, WWF International’s director-general Kirsten Schuijt cautioned that “climate change is moving faster than we are, leaving no part of the world untouched”, a stark reminder of the urgency. 

The new targets pledge ~17 percent (2030) and 27 percent (2035) cuts in net emissions (conditional on aid). These enhancements reflect Nepal’s view that even LDCs must strengthen ambition in line with the Paris stocktake. The UNFCCC now lists Nepal among about 60 countries that have presented updated NDCs by 2025.

Nepal has also enshrined a long-term net-zero goal: at COP26 in 2021, the country announced its intent to reach carbon neutrality by 2045, supported by a long-term low-emissions development strategy. Climate Action Tracker notes this pledge, rating it as “almost sufficient” on a 1.5 °C pathway if implemented with international support. In practice, achieving that goal will require vastly scaled-up funding and technology: Nepal estimates it will need $33bn through 2030 to meet its current NDC and another $47.4bn to implement its long-range adaptation plan by 2050. The government acknowledges it can only muster a tiny fraction of this, a reported $100m, domestically, underscoring why COP30 negotiations on finance are critical.

Importantly, at the Sagarmatha Sambaad, the government called for a dedicated Global Mountain Fund, a new finance mechanism to channel aid directly to vulnerable high-altitude communities. It also endorsed key elements of the UN’s Loss and Damage agenda, including capitalizing the new fund agreed at COP29 and simplifying access to climate finance for developing countries. These moves signal that Nepal views COP30 not just as an occasion to speak, but to deliver concrete policy proposals on how the world can support mountain nations.

As one of Earth’s most climate-vulnerable countries, Nepal approaches COP30 with urgency. Its message is clear: warming beyond 1.5°C threatens the Himalayas and the water supply of billions; glaciers are vanishing; floods and droughts are becoming daily life; and without dramatically increased finance and solidarity, even ambitious targets are hard to meet. Government officials and scientists alike say that real progress at COP30 will require bridging the gap between pledges and action, ensuring that decisions in Belém translate into money, technology and safeguards on the ground in Nepal and other frontline states.

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.