Submit your Article

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.

To put it bluntly, Nepal’s disaster management system is a chronic liability for the nation’s economy and development. Year after year, the same pattern repeats: infrastructure buckles under predictable monsoon pressure, commerce grinds to a halt and the government scrambles to provide the bare minimum response. From a commoner’s perspective, this is not just a humanitarian crisis; it’s a fundamental risk to growth, and public trust.

Let’s look at last week’s flood as a case study. Over 120 millimeters of rain in the Kathmandu valley, and what happens? The Bagmati river overflows, settlements get submerged and thousands of travelers get stuck. Major roads, the arteries of trade and mobility, are paralyzed. The cascading impact on businesses, logistics and supply chains is enormous. Missed deliveries, spoiled goods, delayed projects: these translate directly into lost revenue.

The government’s response? Only warnings and temporary road closures. That’s risk mitigation at its most reactive, not proactive. This signals a systemic weakness. If the capital city can’t guarantee basic resilience for its infrastructure, what does that say to entrepreneurs or multinationals considering Nepal as a regional hub? It’s not just embarrassing; it’s a red flag.

What’s truly troubling is that none of this was unforeseen. Meteorological departments both local and international had issued alerts. Risk maps were available. The knowledge was there, but execution was absent. In the private sector, such a disconnect between planning and action would be deemed operational failure. Heads would roll. In the government, it’s business as usual, and that’s a problem.

The root cause isn’t the rain or the rivers or even climate change in isolation; it’s governance. Subpar infrastructure isn’t a quirk of nature; it’s the result of weak regulations, poor enforcement and a culture of shortcuts. When roads collapse or bridges fail, it’s often because substandard materials were used, inspections were skipped or contracts were awarded based on connections rather than competency. This is inefficiency that costs lives but also eats into GDP.

Every broken bridge or flooded market is a direct hit not only to the public purse, but to the broader economy. Taxpayer money gets funneled into rebuilding the same structures year after year, a recurring expense with no strategic return. Meanwhile, the opportunity cost is massive: funds that could go into education, healthcare, technology or even modernizing infrastructure are instead funneled into endless repairs.

And the cycle is disturbingly predictable. Disaster strikes, there’s a flurry of aid, some short-term fixes, and then the urgency fades. Budgets shift elsewhere, reports are filed and forgotten, and nothing really changes before the next crisis. This isn’t just bureaucratic inertia; it’s a structural risk that anyone would flag immediately. You can’t build a future on such shaky ground.

As climate volatility makes weather patterns more extreme and unpredictable, designing for “average conditions” is a recipe for failure. For Nepal to position itself as a viable market, it must engineer infrastructure to withstand not just the probable, but the possible. This means higher upfront costs, yes, but also far greater long-term returns and resilience.

Unplanned construction along rivers and unstable slopes is no longer a public safety issue; it’s a long-term occupational risk. Relocation of vulnerable communities should be done with foresight and dignity, not as a panicked reaction when disaster hits. Every major development project must include a robust climate risk assessment as part of due diligence. To ignore this is, quite literally, to invite future losses.

Accountability remains the missing ingredient. Nepal’s disaster agencies are good at issuing warnings but poor at delivering results. Coordination is weak, resources are stretched and responsibility is diffuse. In the private sector, a failure to deliver on risk management would mean restructuring, tighter oversight and clear consequences. The public sector must adopt a similar approach if it wants to foster sustainable growth and protect both lives and livelihoods.

This endless loop of crisis and neglect is not just unsustainable; it’s a major drag on competitiveness. It normalizes inefficiency, stifles innovation and discourages the kind of long-term planning that underpins successful economies. 

Why do the same roads collapse every year? Why does reconstruction always cost more than prevention? 

These are some of the questions the government must address, without further delay.

Accepting this as normal guarantees the same losses, year after year. If Nepal wants to break the cycle, disaster management must become a strategic priority, not an afterthought. This means investing in maintenance, building up local response capabilities, keeping risk maps updated and ensuring seamless coordination between agencies.

Relief efforts can only do so much; they’re a band-aid on a festering wound. True preparedness, the kind that saves lives and preserves economic stability, starts long before the rain begins to fall. Every failed bridge, every flooded street, every preventable tragedy should be a catalyst for investigation and reform, not just another line item in next year’s budget. Nepal can no longer afford to treat disaster management as a seasonal inconvenience. It’s a catastrophic risk and the cost of inaction is mounting.

The author is an engineer and certified project management professional advocating for enhancing project management practices in Nepal

When thousands of youths marched onto the streets on September 8, many in school dresses, they challenged the traditional power structure using digital platforms. Two things were particularly uncommon in this protest: First, the term “GenZ” and the second, the use of digital platforms. GenZ, often referred to as the first tribe of digital natives, are the demographic cohort after millennials. Analysts describe GenZ as compassionate and thoughtful, yet also anxious in a world of global crises and constant information flow. Second, their reliance on digital tools for communication and mobilization was a defining characteristic during the recent protest.

This decentralized and leaderless protest was a grassroot movement coordinated by GenZ through digital platforms. Platforms like Discord, YouTube and TikTok acted as a central point for information sharing, coordination and collaboration, building consensus and amplifying actions.

As Virginia Matthews once noted, GenZ channels their political power via online identities and digital activism. This holds true in global stage too, movements such as #MeToo and #BlackLivesMatter have shown how digital platforms can amplify voices and turn local frustrations into global advocacy.

Fueled by deep-seated frustration over corruption, inequality and systematic failure, the protest moved beyond the political ideology. It highlighted the ability of digital space to form a common voice, organize and pressure change—faster than conventional politics. It unified young people across cities and even inspired older generations and Nepalis living abroad to offer their support.

Why it matters

The significance of this protest goes beyond the moment of anger and frustration over corruption, inequality and growing influence of a generation in reshaping Nepal’s future.

The oldest members of GenZ are moving through universities, entering the workforce and even stepping into government, just like the previous generation but at a faster pace. They bring entrepreneurial spirit, a comfort with technology and impatience with outdated systems.

Many GenZ are already running digital startups from clothing brands on instagram to gaming companies and e-commerce platforms. For them, digitalization has provided unique opportunities to develop skills, remove social barriers and create sustainable growth. The restriction in the access to the digital world not only limits their potential but also their access to information and social support. The recent protests set a powerful reminder that comprehensive digital education is fundamental for civic participation, economic opportunity and accountable governance.

The protest also exposed how fragile Nepal’s governance system remains. When the public records and digital infrastructure were affected by the protest, it highlighted the vulnerability of paper-based systems. In contrast, data centers and backup availability protected countless documents. For a generation raised online, digitalization is not a luxury or convenience but a necessity, it is more about security, accountability and future stability of the nation.

What the protest revealed?

Education gaps

The protests clearly highlighted that Nepal's GenZ workforce is technologically-driven. This spotlighted the mismatch between GenZ potential and Nepal’s education system. While the jobs like software development, digital marketing and fintech are emerging, most schools place little emphasis on developing these skills. Schools’ curriculum rarely include practical IT training and entrepreneurial skills. If this continues, Nepal risks losing its first generation of digital natives to opportunities abroad. GenZ may be fluent in digital platforms but there is a gap in translating it into the production skills required for Nepal’s digital economy.

Continuing instability

The destruction of the private assets during the GenZ protests highlighted the uncertainty facing entrepreneurs and investors. This widespread fear is rooted in an unstable political-economic environment—most prime-ministers served less than two years in the last decade. This cycle of uncertainty poses a threat to aspiring entrepreneurs to innovate with confidence and ensure support for their products/services. As Nepal aims for graduation from the club of least developed countries in 2026, an unclear and uncertain roadmap threatens to drive both the talent and investment away. The urgency to build stronger and resilient systems to withstand social and political shocks is indeed necessary.

Misinformation and trust

The protest demonstrated how quickly the unverified rumors can spread in times of unrest even as the digital platform helped in forging coordination and sharing verified updates. This highlights the lack of strong foundation in digital literacy, fact-checking mechanisms and responsible online engagement. Without safeguarding, misinformation can distort public understanding and further weaken institutional trust.

Digital readiness

Although the GenZ protest showcased the power of technology to organize and mobilize, it also revealed the uneven digital readiness. The persistent digital divide among urban and rural areas, limited connectivity and uneven digital access among the youth limited the equal participation. Such divides led to an uneven voice among GenZ, these gaps are not only a matter of equality, but also of national progress. Without bridging these gaps, the transformative potential of GenZ to address long-standing issues such as inefficiency, corruption, and inaccessibility might remain limited.

Looking ahead

The GenZ protest revealed the beginning of a digital movement. If nurtured in time, GenZ could lead Nepal’s first true digital transformation. This includes e-government services to make public institutions more transparent, connecting local entrepreneurs with global buyers through digital marketplace and establishment of innovation hubs for young people to design solutions for pressing needs. However, all this depends on today’s choices. Without infrastructure, investment, digital literacy and supportive policies, the movement’s potential will be lost. What is needed is a strong commitment that turns the protest energy into a blueprint for a more open, efficient and inclusive Nepal.

The author is a graduate student in International Cooperation and Development and an EdTech researcher

According to the Constitution, Nepal is a federal parliamentary republic, where the Prime Minister with executive powers is elected through the parliament. However, due to frequent changes in government in recent years, this system has seen many problems, including political instability. Meanwhile, some individuals and groups are demanding a directly-elected Prime Minister. This article seeks to analyze positive and negative effects of this system as well as the challenges of the current parliamentary democracy.

Challenges of parliamentary democracy

One of the most persistent challenges in Nepal’s parliamentary model is the frequent change of governments, which often interrupts long-term development projects. For example, in the pursuit of power, political actors often form fragile coalitions that collapse quickly, while recurring corruption scandals further weaken public trust and spark protests on the streets.

Lack of political culture is another challenge. Leaders obsessed with their own interests do not put the people first. Problems such as corruption, protectionism and nepotism have weakened the effectiveness of democracy. And an increase in economic uncertainty invariably makes foreign elements more active in fragile polities like ours. 

In addition, there are social problems linked to human rights, such as gender-based violence, child marriage and bonded labor. The voices of minority groups such as women, Dalits, people with disabilities and sexual and gender minorities remain unheard. Even two decades after the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement that ended a decade-long war, transitional justice works remain incomplete. All of these factors are challenging Nepal’s democracy.

A directly-elected PM

The current constitution provides for the prime minister to be elected through the parliament. However, some new political forces such as the Rastriya Swatantra Party have proposed a directly-elected prime minister. The GenZ movement has also raised the demand for a term limit and a system of direct elections for the prime minister. This change would require a constitutional amendment needing a two-thirds majority in the parliament. The current interim prime minister, Sushila Karki, has stated that she does not have the mandate to effect this change in the constitution.

Positive effects

The system of a directly-elected prime minister can bring political stability as chances of the government serving a full term are higher. It provides continuity to national development works and supports economic and social progress. Since the elected leader depends on a broader support of the people, this system protects the country from extreme left or right-wing ideologies by encouraging centrist policies. A directly-elected Prime Minister is free from parliamentary wranglings, so s/he can become a strong executive by taking decisions quickly and effectively.

The contemporary history of South Asia and Europe offer successful examples of this type of system. In Sri Lanka, for example, the president is directly elected and holds executive powers. Following the end of the civil war in 2009, the South Asian country, under the strong leadership of Mahinda Rajapaksa, made temporary gains in sectors such as tourism and infrastructure. 

France’s semi-presidential system illustrates how a directly-elected president can drive reforms, as seen under Emmanuel Macron’s leadership with labor and EU policy changes. Macron maintained political stability and responded effectively to the covid pandemic. These examples show that direct elections provide leadership with popular support and make it easier to implement long-term policies. There are also successful examples of prime ministers elected through the parliament. Under Narendra Modi, India achieved economic growth from 2014 to 2024, including GST reforms and Digital India, making the country the fifth largest global economy. In Europe, the UK’s parliamentary system has long provided stability. The Tony Blair government, for example, brought economic prosperity by improving education and health. These successes clearly show that parliamentary systems can take balanced decisions by incorporating diverse views.

Negative effects

This system is not a panacea. Conflicts between the president and the prime minister can increase under this system, thereby deepening instability. Currently, there is a problem regarding the executive authority of caretaker Prime Minister Sushila Karki, who came to power (not through the usual parliamentary process) following a youths-led movement that toppled an elected government, and President Ramchandra Paudel, who remains as the head of the state and the enforcer as well as the protector of the constitution. Limiting the powers of PM Karki, President Paudel has tasked the current government with a singular mandate: conducting elections in six months. 

In this context, it may be worthwhile to revisit the interim government under Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, which took shape after the people's movement of 1990. With full support from King Birendra, the government successfully conducted parliamentary elections and also introduced a constitution within a year. 

Whereas PM Karki has not received such support from President Paudel, meaning holding elections within the deadline will be easier said than done. This situation gives an ample indication of problems that directly-elected PMs may have to face if Nepal opts for such a system.