Submit your Article

In today’s world, mobile phones have become more than just a means of talking to one another—they have become an inseparable part of our daily lives. According to the National Census Report of 2022, about 73.2 percent of Nepalis now own a mobile phone, while only 4.5 percent still use a landline. This shift tells an interesting story: nearly three out of every five people in the country have mobile access. It’s a remarkable step toward the vision of a Digital Nepal.

This widespread use of mobile phones has changed how people stay connected. Families, friends and communities can now share information and emotions instantly, bridging physical distances and strengthening social ties. Mobile phones have become tools of connection.

However, the same technology that keeps us connected also plays a key role in crime investigation. With mobile phones nearly in every hand, police and other law enforcement agencies have found new ways to track down suspects and gather evidence of crime.

The Call Detail Records (CDRs) provide a wealth of information—numbers dialed, call duration and timestamps—that help investigators to find the accused or the victim’s movement, communication patterns and even possible intentions. In many cases, these records become crucial in identifying the sequence of events, the intent, planning and execution of a crime/offense.

Constitutional scenario 

The Constitution of Nepal prohibits the enactment of any law or order that undermines fundamental freedoms and constitutional values. Article 19(3) stipulates that the means of communication cannot be obstructed except by law. Article 28 guarantees the right to privacy concerning one’s body, residence, property, documents and communications. The Individuals’ Right to Privacy Act, 2018, under Section 11 and 25, empowers investigating agencies to collect personal information during the investigation of an offense with authorization from a court or some other appropriate authority. This Act seeks to strengthen the right to privacy; however, its provisions clarify that privacy is not absolute and may be restricted during criminal investigations by the police. 

Article 20 further provides that no defendant shall be compelled to testify against themselves and that they have the right to be informed of the actions taken against them.

Criminal laws 

Though Nepal lacks an independent law specifically governing CDRs, multiple laws—including the Right to Privacy Act, 2075; Narcotic Drugs Act; Telecommunication Act, 2053; and the Electronic Transaction Act, 2063—have provided the legal basis for collecting individuals’ data during criminal investigations. 

The Nepal Telecommunications Authority (NTA) directs telecommunication service providers to archive call records for at least one year. The NTA also instructs service providers to furnish CDRs to investigating authorities upon a court order.

Section 10A of the Narcotic Drug (Control) Act, 2033 authorizes investigating agencies to collect phone records and other communication details of any person under investigation. A similar legal provision is found in Section 18 of the Organized Crime (Prevention) Act, 2070, which empowers investigators to obtain communication data for crime control purposes.

The Telecommunications Act, 2053, under Section 19, empowers the government to tap telephones or obtain call details of any individual when deemed necessary under the law.

Further, the Guidelines Relating to Access to Justice (Procedure), 2074, adopted by the Supreme Court of Nepal, entrusts district courts with the authority to regulate the procedure for obtaining call details. Section 4 of the guidelines requires the investigating officer to submit copies of the First Information Report (FIR) or Police Report, along with other relevant documents, when seeking court permission to access a person’s call details. Section 7 provides that the police or any other investigating authority may request the court for access to information such as location, SMS, CDRs, user details, SIM user and location, call-wise location, IP address and internet activity logs, among other details. Section 11 stipulates that the district judge’s decision in this regard shall be final.

In Advocate Baburam Aryal v Government of Nepal (NKP 2074, Part 59, Decision No. 9740), the Supreme Court held that obtaining call or SMS details without legal authorization is unlawful. The court emphasized that while criminal investigations may rely on CDRs, such actions must strictly adhere to the procedures prescribed by law and order.

Section 297 of the National Criminal Code, 2017 prohibits the interception or recording of another person’s telephone conversation without proper authorization or consent. Violation of this provision is punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to NPR 20,000 or both. Section 299 prohibits deceitful telephone calls or transmitting messages. It provides that a person who commits such an offense shall be liable to a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine not exceeding twenty thousand rupees or both. 

Global precedent 

In India, Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 [Indian Evidence Act, 2023] provides that magistrates have the authority to permit or deny the collection of CDR information.

In China, there is no requirement for a judicial order to obtain CDR information. The legal framework does not recognize the concept of a warrant, and security personnel have the authority to detain individuals or demand CDRs directly.

In Japan, CDRs are obtained by investigating agencies only upon the order of judicial officials, ensuring judicial oversight in the process.

Way forward 

The CDRs are a valuable tool for understanding networks, as they reveal who called whom, how frequently and for how long. They help uncover criminal networks and associates, playing a crucial role in tracking the whereabouts of suspects, defendants and their accomplices.

Despite their importance, an independent legislation dealing with CDRs is still due in Nepal. There is scope for amending the National Criminal Procedure Code to formally incorporate a mechanism for the lawful collection and use of CDRs in investigations.

In most classrooms across Nepal, you won’t see children with diverse learning needs, not because they don’t exist, but because they’ve been made invisible. Undiagnosed, unsupported, and excluded, these children are left behind long before the first lesson begins.

I first glimpsed this invisibility as a child myself. At around ten years old, I was once waiting for results at an inter-school dance competition when a group of children from a school for the intellectually challenged performed. One of the girls left the stage and walked directly up to me, her face just inches from mine, and asked my name.

I wasn’t wary of her. I was scared of doing the wrong thing. Of saying something hurtful. Of not knowing how to respond. No one had ever talked to me about intellectual disability. No one had prepared me for what to do or how to simply be with someone who moved, spoke, or behaved differently. So I stood there, paralyzed.

Today, as a school leader trying to build inclusive classrooms in a deeply non-inclusive system, I understand that moment differently. It wasn’t just my discomfort, it was society’s silence. Our schools, our homes, and our media had never acknowledged children like her. That silence has hardened into systemic neglect.

More and more children with diverse learning needs are entering our classrooms. But they are still misunderstood, often mislabeled as lazy, disruptive, or incapable. The lucky few who are identified are either nudged out of mainstream schools or left unsupported within them, trapped in a system never designed to recognize their potential.

Globally, around 10-15 percent of children are estimated to have specific learning disabilities such as dyslexia, dysgraphia, or dyscalculia. Neurodevelopmental conditions like ADHD and autism affect an additional 4-10 percent. UNICEF reports that 12.5 percent of children aged 5-17 worldwide have moderate to severe disabilities that impact their access to learning. In Nepal, the numbers are even more stark. A national study found that over 35 percent of children aged 3-4 showed signs of developmental delay, particularly in areas of literacy and social-emotional development. While official disability data remains limited and often under-reported (ranging from 1.6 percent to 14 percent depending on the source), these figures highlight the widespread and urgent need for support systems that go far beyond current efforts.

Nepal’s Constitution, in Article 31, guarantees every citizen the right to education, explicitly committing to equitable access. It calls for education to be brought “within reach of all” and to create “equal opportunities for all.” Building on this, the Inclusive Education Policy of 2016 affirms that every child has the right to study in an inclusive, dignified environment. The policy assigns clear responsibilities to national bodies like the Curriculum Development Center and the National Examination Board, mandating the development of accessible curricula, resources, and assessment systems.

These are commendable commitments. But for educators on the ground, these policies often feel disconnected from reality. Ambiguity persists: Which needs are officially recognized? How are schools operationalizing inclusive education? Who ensures that teachers, counselors, and systems are ready to support this transformation?

Among the most visible barriers is Nepal’s standardized examination system. The Basic Level Examination (BLE) in Grade 8, the Secondary Education Examination (SEE) in Grade 10, and the School Leaving Certificate (SLC) in Grade 12 are all high-stakes assessments with rigid structures. Crucially, passing these exams is mandatory to move forward in the education system. But what about students who cannot pass, not due to lack of effort, but because of intellectual disabilities, neurodevelopmental conditions, or specific learning needs? These students are left without an option. The system treats academic performance as the sole indicator of worth and readiness, erasing the potential of those who learn differently.

The rigidity of these exams sits atop a shaky foundation. Schools lack access to trained professionals who can assess students, provide formal diagnoses, and participate in Individualized Education Plan (IEP) teams. In the absence of such expertise, educators are forced to make judgment calls they are neither trained nor authorized to make. To move forward, Nepal must invest in long-term solutions: teacher training programs focused on inclusive education, specialized university degrees in diverse learning needs and counseling, and ongoing parent education initiatives. 

There is also an urgent need for both national and local support systems staffed with experts in assessment, therapy, teacher and parent support, and school-based implementation to guide and empower schools.These systems must also include financial support for schools and families to access essential therapies, hire specialized teachers, and sustain meaningful inclusion. Without this comprehensive backing, inclusion remains aspirational rather than actionable.

Even when students are identified and supported in school, challenges remain in securing examination accommodations. The current policy requires requests to be submitted two months before the exam, yet in practice, schools often receive approval (or even information about the option) only a week before. This last-minute uncertainty discourages innovation and risks putting students in pedagogically unsound positions. Instead, the government should allow accommodations and modifications to be formally registered and approved as soon as a student’s needs are identified. This would allow schools to support the student throughout the year, not just in exams but in daily learning. Inclusion cannot be reactionary. It must be sustained and authentic.

Inclusion also requires flexibility in curriculum structure and certification. Some students could thrive with reduced subject loads. I currently work with a student with a language-based learning difficulty, for whom taking one language instead of multiple would make a world of difference. Yet the system doesn’t allow for this. We need an alternative School Leaving Certificate for such students that maintains the integrity of the curriculum but allows reduced subject requirements. Additionally, there must be a second type of certificate for students who require modified content entirely, for those whose cognitive development differs significantly from their biological age.

Crucially, these alternative certificates must carry the same procedural and social value as traditional ones. They must lead to further education and employment opportunities. Without this equivalency, these students remain excluded, their achievements undermined, and their futures jeopardized.

Beyond Grade 10, there must be guaranteed continuity of accommodations through Grade 12 and higher. And for those unable to pursue academic pathways, vocational programs must be introduced, not as a last resort, but as a dignified, valuable alternative. Every student must have a path to self-reliance and social inclusion.

Inclusion is not charity. It is not a favor. It is a right. If Nepal is sincere about its promise of equitable education, it must recognize that inclusive education is not about bringing children into the system as it exists but about reshaping the system itself. This means rethinking policies, retraining professionals, redesigning exams, funding resources, and most of all, re-framing our understanding of human potential.

The invisible students of our nation are not invisible by nature; they are made invisible by our inaction. And how we choose to respond today will define the kind of nation we become tomorrow.

Nepal stands at a critical juncture—demographically and economically. For years, remittances have propped up the numbers. Behind the GDP figures lies a more fragile reality—an economy that consumes more than it produces and depends on forces it cannot control.

For too long, Nepal sought the easy route to prosperity. It neglected to consider economic resilience, which allows economic growth to be enduring. The result is a brittle economy that is also vulnerable to external factors. A vulnerable economy cannot inspire confidence; it deters the very investment needed to strengthen it.

The path to resilience lies in turning inward, not in isolation but in foundation-building. By strengthening food and energy security, improving the quality of local production, and fostering trust-based growth in sectors like tourism and healthcare, Nepal can create an economy that grows from within—steady, self-reinforcing, and less vulnerable to global tides.

Limitations of conventional economic thinking

While economists play a vital role in guiding national policy, their models—useful as they are—often miss systemwide effects. Nowhere is this more evident than in the treatment of remittances. A presentation on the multiplier effect of remittance inflows can be seductive, yet models rarely capture how dependence on remittances weakens domestic supply chains, discourages entrepreneurship, and hollows out local talent pools.

In the short run, remittances may inflate GDP via consumption. In the long run, they heighten vulnerability to external shocks—such as a fall in global oil prices that cuts remittance inflows, even though lower prices should, in principle, benefit an oil-importing nation like Nepal. The result is an economy that appears to grow while losing internal dynamism and self-sufficiency. A sober reading of the last two decades suggests heavy remittance dependence has been one factor in Nepal’s underperformance relative to some South Asian peers.

Imagine a self-sufficient village becoming remittance-dependent: shops survive, but farmers and value-adding businesses suffer; mechanics, millers, and transporters find less work; employment shrinks; production and labour systems unravel. When external conditions worsen and remittances fall, the village is left with little productive base to fall back on.

Policy implication: Treat remittances as a cushion, not a growth model; prioritize policies that rebuild domestic production and capability.

Economic priorities: Resilience before global integration

Exports and foreign direct investment (FDI) can support development, but for a landlocked country facing scale disadvantages and tough competitors, they should follow—not precede—domestic resilience. The first priority is ensuring Nepal can sustain basic wellbeing regardless of global volatility or political pressure.

Resilience begins with self-sufficiency in essentials—especially food and energy—supported by shorter supply chains that are easier to maintain and less exposed to external shocks. Strengthening local production and internal trade does not reject international exchange; it creates the stability needed to engage global markets meaningfully. This insulation from volatility is a hallmark of successful economies. Since food and energy represent some of the largest leakages in Nepal’s economy, and both can be produced domestically, the effort to strengthen internal circulation should begin with these sectors.

A strategy grounded in resilience makes the economy not smaller but stronger. Reduced vulnerability at home prepares Nepal for global integration on its own terms.

Policy implication: Prioritize reforms to improve the reliability of domestic food and energy production and distribution, and only then focus on exposure to external markets and capital.

Domestic retention of value

Concept: The more times a rupee circulates within Nepal before leaking abroad (through imports, foreign tuition, and so on), the more jobs and income it supports.

Why it matters: Domestic spending sustains farmers, workers, transporters, shopkeepers, and technicians—who then hire and buy from one another. Import-heavy consumption, by contrast, lets value escape and weakens resilience.

Illustration:

Imported path: Rs 1,000 spent on imported LPG exits the economy quickly, leaving only trade margins behind.

Domestic path: Rs 1,000 spent on locally generated electricity stays in circulation and can, in turn, be spent on food from Nepali farmers, supporting truckers and retailers along the way. They, in turn, increase the demand for local electricity.

By expanding the use of domestic products and reducing avoidable imports, Nepal can raise GDP through a stronger internal multiplier. Economists understand this mechanism well, but it remains underused in Nepal’s development strategy. 

Policy implication: Focus first on the biggest leakages—food and energy—so each rupee circulates longer at home.

Organic growth over inorganic

Growth driven by foreign aid, advertising, subsidies, or one-off events is inorganic: it spikes, then fades. Nepal should instead prioritize organic growth—steady, self-reinforcing expansion built on quality, reliability, and reputation.

Tourism example: Rather than relying on ad campaigns, build repeat visits and word-of-mouth through a continuous cycle of improvement. The process is simple but powerful: listen → improve → convey, then repeat. Gather feedback from visitors, fix what matters most, and make those improvements visible. Each cycle strengthens trust, enhances reputation, and draws more satisfied visitors.

A tourist who feels fairly treated—who is not overcharged, stays healthy, receives genuine hospitality, and gets more than expected—is likely to return. Such experiences build trust, which is the most enduring form of promotion.

Fund the public infrastructure and services that sustain this process: clean trails, reliable rescue services, clear sign boards, public toilets, digital payment systems, and fair, transparent pricing at tourist nodes. Reduce friction through e-visas, predictable permits, transparent fees, and bundled passes. Measure success by depth of engagement—repeat visits, longer stays, and higher local spending—not just arrival counts.

Policy implication: Institutionalize continuous feedback and visible improvement in tourism services; treat satisfaction and repeat behavior as the true measures of success.

Taking advantage of our strengths

Building on organic growth, Nepal should leverage its existing strengths, beginning with tourism. Every visitor should leave satisfied and informed about Nepal’s broader possibilities—especially reliable, affordable medical and wellness services such as dentistry, eye care, physiotherapy, and hair restoration. A trekker today can be a medical tourist tomorrow—or an ambassador who sends a friend.

In many advanced economies, medical care is prohibitively expensive or slow to access. In the United States, even routine procedures cost several times more than in Nepal. In countries with universal healthcare, waiting lists for non-urgent treatments are long. For such visitors, Nepal’s combination of affordability, competence, and hospitality can be genuinely appealing. Unlike much of what passes for “medical tourism” elsewhere, Nepal can offer the real thing: treatment followed by recovery and travel in the same journey.

Candour about both strengths and weaknesses is essential. Tourist feedback must feed directly into service improvements, infrastructure upgrades, and staff training. This cycle—celebrating what works and fixing what doesn’t—turns visitors into repeat customers and advocates.

Nepal’s comparative advantages are clear: natural beauty, genuine hospitality, cost-effective professional care, and relatively low labour costs. The task is to strengthen these advantages through consistency and quality, so that every visitor departs satisfied and aware of what Nepal can offer them and their networks.

Beyond tourism, Nepal can build on similar principles of value and trust in other niche opportunities—from hosting retirees seeking affordable, comfortable living to offering high-quality personalized tailoring and craft services. Such ventures may seem unconventional, but they draw on the same strengths that make Nepal competitive: warmth, skill, and value for money. Each represents a genuine win-win, expanding Nepal’s reach while reinforcing its domestic capabilities.

Policy implication: Position tourism as an entry point to Nepal’s wider offerings in health, wellness, and craftsmanship, while strengthening quality and reliability across the service chain.

Integrated approach to development

Nepal must manage its resources frugally. It has neither the luxury of time nor the abundance to spend inefficiently. Government expenditures should therefore advance multiple goals at once, creating compounding benefits rather than isolated outcomes.

Example 1: Hetauda–Kathmandu cargo and transport cable car

Consider a cable car system linking Hetauda with Kathmandu. Private enterprises have already built several cable car networks for tourism. Drawing on their experience, Nepal could develop a low-cost, energy-efficient system to transport both goods and people between the two cities.

It should be cheaper to move goods by cable car than by diesel trucks that often weigh several times more than their cargo—diesel that must be mined in the Middle East, refined in India, and trucked across Nepal’s steep terrain. If the cable car system cannot achieve this, there is a flaw in its design or an issue of excessive profit-seeking.

During construction, the Ministry of Agriculture could establish a procurement hub near Hetauda to purchase produce from domestic farmers at fair market prices, with the intent to expand the program nationwide.

The system should be financially self-sufficient—operating without government subsidy—but guided by a public-service mandate to provide reliable and affordable transport. Such an initiative could boost agricultural output, lower food prices in Kathmandu, reduce economic leakage through lower food and energy imports, expand employment, cut emissions, decrease road accidents, and stimulate innovation.

Example 2: Narrow pathways to link rural communities

Many of the rural roads built across Nepal have yielded little lasting benefit and, in some cases, have harmed local communities. Overly wide roads have consumed arable land, worsened erosion, and increased landslides. Designed for large vehicles, they have proven costly to maintain and ill-suited to sparsely populated areas.

Nepal should instead prioritize narrow, well-engineered pathways that connect villages at similar elevations, minimizing steep gradients and annual monsoon damage. Built properly, such paths would require little maintenance and could support affordable, low-emission transport such as bicycles and small electric vehicles.

A network of such pathways would strengthen rural connectivity, preserve farmland, reduce erosion, lower infrastructure costs, and encourage innovation. It would also offer a distinctive model of rural mobility—one that promotes tourism while reflecting Nepal’s ingenuity and respect for its landscape.

Policy implication: Prioritize integrated projects that advance multiple goals—for example, efficiency, connectivity, resilience—within a single investment.

Population decline and student migration

A growing challenge is population decline in many areas, driven by the outward migration of youth for education and work. As destination countries tighten immigration rules, many students spend thousands abroad only to return with depleted savings and limited prospects. This drains foreign reserves, reduces demand for local producers, and accelerates the decline of the working-age population.

A family spending several lakhs per year on tuition and housing abroad removes equivalent purchasing power from local farmers, schools, housing, and services. If permanent residency abroad does not materialize, the household returns financially weaker, and Nepal loses both years of potential contribution and the chance for a young person to build a career at home. Nepal would be wise to reduce outward student migration, especially immediately after Grade 12.

Policy implication: Tighten quality controls and consumer protections around student outflows while building attractive domestic pathways for learning and work.

Proposed policy directions

1. Reduce remittance dependence

Introduce moderate exit controls for low-return, high-risk placements abroad while offering skill-bridging programs and small grants for returnees to start or join local enterprises.

Impact: Rebuilds domestic capability, strengthens local employment, and reduces vulnerability to external shocks.

2. Reform the temporary foreign worker system

Negotiate bilateral agreements that guarantee fair wages, insurance, and safe working conditions for Nepali workers abroad. Shift focus from volume to value—fewer departures, better protection, and stronger oversight of recruitment practices. Implement measures such as exit clearances for high-risk destinations.

Impact: Protects workers from exploitation, preserves Nepal’s labour strength, and restores confidence for domestic investment and entrepreneurship.

3. Regulate outward student migration

Approve study permits only for recognized institutions, license and supervise recruitment agencies with enforceable welfare guarantees, and expand domestic options such as vocational programs, cooperative degrees, and scholarships tied to national needs.

Impact: Protects families from exploitation, slows youth drain, and sustains demand for local education and services.

4. Encourage domestic circulation of wealth

Focus national effort where it matters most—on food and energy, the two sectors where value leaks abroad the fastest but can also be most easily retained. Support domestic food production through fair procurement, storage, and transport programs; promote agro-processing clusters near urban markets; and ensure reliable, affordable energy through stable hydropower, wider use of induction stoves, and ropeways or cable systems to reduce diesel transport.

Impact: Reduces dependence on imports, stabilizes prices, strengthens rural incomes, and keeps more of every rupee circulating within Nepal’s economy.

5. Build from within

Prioritize reliability in food systems, domestic energy, and logistics before courting large-scale foreign investment. When inviting investment, reward projects that strengthen domestic supply chains—for example, those that source materials locally, contract Nepali service providers, or transfer production know-how to local firms. Require foreign investors to partner with domestic suppliers and to train Nepali workers, ensuring technology and skills stay in the country.

Impact: Aligns foreign participation with national capacity-building so that Nepal can engage with the world on its own terms.

6. Promote organic growth in tourism

Develop a permanent mechanism for continuous quality improvement across the tourism chain. Focus public investment on essentials such as safety, sign boards, sanitation, digital payments, and fair pricing for tourists. Measure progress through visitor satisfaction, repeat visits, and longer stays.

Impact: Builds trust and reputation through steady enhancement of quality instead of short-term campaigns.

7. Expand tourism’s scope: Health, wellness, and care

Provide reliable information at airports, hotels, and major trails on accredited clinics with transparent pricing. Offer fixed-price care packages and simplified medical-visitor visas for patients and companions. Establish a feedback mechanism to uphold the integrity of partner organizations and ensure consistently high service standards.

Impact: Extends the value of existing visitor flows, generates high-trust, high-value services, and diversifies Nepal’s economic base.

8. Integrate development efforts for compounding impact

Design public investments to achieve multiple objectives—economic, social, and environmental—within a single initiative. Each project should create compounding benefits rather than isolated gains. For example, transport projects can also advance energy efficiency, local procurement, and rural employment; agricultural initiatives can simultaneously improve food security, logistics, and trade balance.

Impact: Delivers higher returns on public spending, strengthens linkages across sectors, and embeds resilience into the fabric of development.

9. Institutionalize feedback and data infrastructure

Create a national feedback loop—listen → improve → convey—using tools such as QR surveys at key touchpoints, public reporting of results, and visible follow-up actions. This infrastructure need not be limited to tourism, though that would be a natural place to begin.

Impact: Builds transparency, strengthens accountability, and makes improvement a continuous, self-reinforcing process.

Conclusion

Nepal’s first task in the coming year is to make resilience visible and measurable. That begins with cutting the largest leakages—keeping more of every rupee circulating at home through local food procurement, electrification of cooking, and domestic energy reliability. Strengthening these foundations should precede any push for global expansion, so that foreign investment builds upon Nepal’s own productive capacity rather than substituting for it. The projects that the government takes on must solve multiple problems at once. In tourism, the goal should be to turn first-time visitors into repeat guests and advocates, using transparent feedback loops and the expansion of high-trust and high-value offerings such as medical and wellness travel. At the same time, families and youth must be protected from exploitative education and labour pipelines abroad through credible domestic opportunities that make staying an equally rational choice.

Nepal will be strongest when it is resilient first and globally integrated second—organic before inorganic, strengths before stretch. By focusing on leakage reduction, service reliability, and the conversion of visitors into lasting partners, the country can create a cycle of improvement that feeds on itself. Small, practical steps, applied with discipline, will compound into stability, dignity, and durable prosperity.

Nepal’s political landing has been one of remarkable transformations but with persistent fragility. From constitutional monarchy to federal, secular republic, the country has continually redefined its system of governance. Yet, the outcomes remain uneven: political instability, fragmented coalitions, patronage-driven governance, economic interruption, diplomatic distrust and declining public trust. The repeated neglect in the people’s noise has brought about the recent GenZ uprising, which has exposed the urgency for a state that delivers stability, accountability and credibility—not just representation.

As Nepal reflects on its political destiny, it must explore a hybrid model of governance — blending the parliamentary accountability of the United Kingdom, the institutional discipline of the United States, and the executive balance of France’s semi-presidential system. Such a synthesis could deliver what neither pure parliamentary nor presidential models have achieved in Nepal: a government that is stable yet accountable, professional yet democratic, and credible at home and abroad.

The limits of the current system

Nepal’s 2015 Constitution institutionalized a parliamentary democracy with federalism, secularism and proportional representation. Yet, it has also produced coalition instability and administrative paralysis. Prime Ministers change with alarming frequency, political parties prioritize alliances over governance, and lawmakers double as ministers, often compromising both legislative oversight and executive efficiency.

In this model, the state has become top-heavy but underperforming. Parliament, intended to be the guardian of accountability, has become an arena of political bargaining. The public perceives politics as self-serving, and governance as synonymous with corruption or inertia. The structural question, therefore, is not just who governs, but how Nepal governs.

Learning from global models

Accountability thru parliament

The Westminster model offers robust parliamentary control but is vulnerable to instability when coalitions dominate. Nepal’s adaptation of this model has suffered from party fragmentation, weak discipline, and limited professionalization of ministers.

Separation and professionalism

The American system demonstrates how a strict separation between the executive and legislature enhances efficiency. Cabinet members are appointed from outside Congress, ensuring that ministers are professionals rather than politicians. This approach insulates governance from partisan instability and rewards expertise and performance.

Balance thru dual executive

France’s semi-presidential model combines a ceremonial President as head of state and a Prime Minister accountable to Parliament. This dualism provides balance and continuity, ensuring that no single institution monopolizes power. It also allows the executive to remain stable even amid political transitions.

For Nepal, the lessons are clear: parliamentary instability can be offset by executive professionalism and constitutional balance. A hybrid framework that draws from these three systems can be tailored to Nepal’s scale, political culture and aspirations.

A proposed model for Nepal

A House-elected chief executive

The Prime Minister would remain the head of the government, elected by a majority of parliament members for a fixed four or five-year term. To prevent excessive politicking, a no-confidence vote should be restricted within the first two years of tenure. The Prime Minister should not hold any party office, ensuring that governance remains above partisan maneuvering.

Subject experts as ministers

A critical innovation would be to separate lawmakers from the executive. Ministers should be drawn from outside Parliament—from academia, civil service, security, intelligentsia, business and other professional sectors—vetted by a parliamentary confirmation committee. This professional cabinet would reflect meritocracy rather than political patronage. It would also help address public disillusionment with political elites and bring expertise into governance.

A lean, unicameral legislature

Nepal could abolish the National Assembly and operate with a unicameral Parliament of 125-150 members. The current size is costly and redundant, while duplication across two houses delays decision-making. A leaner legislature would enhance efficiency and focus on lawmaking and oversight. The electoral system could remain mixed—60 percent direct and 40 percent proportional—to preserve inclusivity.

A ceremonial prez

The President would serve as Head of State and constitutional guardian, with powers to ensure continuity during crises. Elected through an electoral college of Parliament and provincial assemblies, the President’s role would be symbolic but stabilizing—much like the German or Indian model.

Toward a system that works

Nepal could gradually move away from its costly and fragmented federal structure toward a union government system that retains local empowerment but restores national coherence. Federalism, though conceived to promote inclusion, has instead multiplied bureaucracy, diffused accountability, and strained public finances. A Union model—drawing lessons from Japan’s prefectural efficiency, France’s unitary yet decentralized administration, and the UK’s devolution framework—would streamline governance by abolishing redundant provincial layers while strengthening local bodies and professional administration. This approach would preserve representation where necessary but align authority, resources and responsibility under a unified executive and legislative framework, ensuring fiscal discipline, administrative clarity, and national stability.

Strengthened oversight institutions

Parliamentary committees—especially Public Accounts, National Security and Ethics—must become more independent and professional. The judiciary should retain constitutional independence, and the Constitutional Council should include respected professionals, not only party appointees.

Why this model fits Nepal

Stability thru structure:

A fixed-term Prime Minister and a professional cabinet would end the cycle of frequent government collapses. Continuity of governance would allow long-term planning—particularly for infrastructure, economic reforms and foreign policy.

Professionalism over patronage:

By selecting ministers from outside Parliament, Nepal would cultivate an executive focused on performance and delivery. This mirrors the US cabinet system, where expertise outweighs party loyalty. It also reduces corruption by severing the link between lawmaking and resource control.

Accountability sans instability:

Legislative oversight remains robust through committees, but the executive retains autonomy in implementation. This ensures accountability without paralyzing governance.

Efficiency and cost reduction:

A smaller, unicameral Parliament would save public expenditure and improve efficiency — vital for a small, resource-constrained nation.

Institutional balance:

A ceremonial president, an empowered parliament and a professional executive would together prevent both authoritarian drift and chaotic populism. The structure would encourage responsible governance rather than perpetual negotiation.

Challenges to reform

Reforming the Constitution will not be easy. Political elites are unlikely to give up ministerial privileges or the leverage that comes from coalition bargaining. Civil society must therefore drive the national conversation on governance reform—framing it not as a partisan debate but as a strategic necessity.

Another challenge lies in bureaucratic resistance. A professionalized cabinet must work with a reformed civil service, guided by clear performance metrics and ethical standards. Nepal’s success will depend on whether institutions—not individuals—become the true anchors of power.

Finally, there must be a cultural shift in how politics is practiced. Political parties should evolve from patronage machines into programmatic institutions that shape policy and national vision, not appointments and benefits.

Reimagining governance for credibility

Nepal’s quest for stability is not about replacing one form of government with another, but about refining its governance architecture to reflect its realities. The hybrid model offers a balance between democratic representation and administrative efficiency.

It is a model where Parliament governs through oversight, not occupation; where ministers serve through expertise, not entitlement; and where the people measure democracy not by rhetoric, but by delivery.

If Nepal succeeds in building such a system, it would set a regional example—a small state navigating complex politics through institutional strength and meritocratic governance. This would also complement India’s and China’s neighborhood strategies by ensuring Nepal’s internal credibility, which remains the foundation of any external stability.

Toward a governance compact

Nepal can no longer afford the cyclical instability that has eroded public faith and economic opportunity. It needs a Governance Compact 2040—an understanding across parties, provinces, and society that stability, merit and accountability must define the next political generation.

A hybrid constitutional model drawing from the discipline of the United Kingdom, the professional governance of the United States, and the executive balance of France could suit Nepal’s unique needs.

It would keep democracy accountable, insulate administration from partisan capture, and restore credibility to governance. Reimagining governance is not a rejection of democracy but its renewal. A hybrid model—where Parliament elects the Prime Minister, ministers are drawn from merit, and a lean structure is lean and functional that ensures efficiency—could transform Nepal toward “stability and integrity” from a state of perpetual transition to one of strategic coherence and credible democracy.

Nepal’s future stability will depend not on who rules, but on how it chooses to govern.

The author is Maj Gen (Retd) and a strategic affairs analyst based in Kathmandu. He writes on South Asian geopolitics, national security, and the intersection of governance, diplomacy, and stability