Submit your Article

Balendra Shah, widely known as Balen, is a successful structural engineer who has emerged as one of Nepal’s youngest political leaders of the modern era. As Mayor of Kathmandu, he reshaped the city’s trajectory by restoring ancient architecture and advancing a vision for a cleaner, greener, and healthier urban environment. His initiatives in education and employment were equally transformative.

Through the Kathmandu Metropolitan City scholarship program, thousands of students continued their studies beyond the Secondary Education Examination (SEE), while job fairs connected citizens to meaningful work opportunities. His anti-corruption drive within KMC further strengthened public trust. These achievements elevated Balen to national prominence. From elderly residents in Jhapa to young children in Dang, Surkhet, and Kalikot, citizens flocked to his campaign rallies, signaling a generational shift in political enthusiasm. His landslide victory in Jhapa against UML leader Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli underscored his growing influence. 

Rabi Lamichhane, Chair of the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), has also advanced political reforms. Yet his decision to endorse Balen for Prime Minister reflects a profound act of statesmanship. By prioritizing national progress over personal ambition, Rabi positioned Balen as the face of a new governance model: one defined by efficiency, prosperity, and the principle of “less government, more governance”. Accordingly, Nepal must now bring forward and implement a new economic agenda. In the post-UN LDC graduation era, policies must be efficient, impactful, productivity and export driven. Only through such reforms can Nepal sustain growth, strengthen sovereignty, and meet the aspirations of its citizens

A case of bureaucratic resistance

A young agricultural graduate from Narayanpur of Dang, initiated Kesar (Saffron) cultivation at his house rooftop balcony with an initial investment of about Rs 4m, combining personal equity with loans from relatives and friends. His goal was to engage his son from going abroad, who had graduated in agriculture from a premier Indian institution, in building a model farm. The venture proved highly successful: saffron production thrived, demand was strong, and buyers, primarily hotels, readily procured Kesar. 

Yet despite this success, the young entrepreneur struggled to expand. His repeated appeals to provincial government authorities and banks for subsidized loans were rejected. He sought financing from multiple sources to upgrade production and establish a model saffron farm in Dang, but his efforts were consistently thwarted by bureaucratic resistance. This case illustrates the frustration of talented young citizens committed to advancing productivity, production and innovation, only to be obstructed by a system that poisons innovation and service delivery.

Bureaucracy as the greatest obstacle

The greatest obstacle to the RSP-led government lies in Nepal’s lethargic bureaucracy. For decades, senior officials have enjoyed serving traditional political interests, enjoyed privileges while obstructed reform. A telling example occurred a couple of months ago when the sitting Finance Secretary dismissed the Health Minister’s concerns over health insurance funding; an essential service for vulnerable communities. Such resistance reflects a broader administrative culture designed to frustrate reformist agendas. To succeed, the Balen-led government must dismantle this culture of indifference and transform the bureaucracy into a service-oriented institution. 

Security forces, courts, health workers, administrative staffs and corporate houses, etc. as gatekeepers must be reoriented toward delivering public goods rather than protecting traditional political interests. Only by overcoming these systemic barriers can the aspirations of Nepali citizens be realized, cementing Rabi-Balen as icons of a reformed nation.

The economic paradigm post LDC graduation

Nepal’s upcoming graduation date from UN Least Developed Country (LDC) status in November 2026 marks both a milestone and a challenge. While successive international programs like the Paris Declaration Action of Program (1990), the Brussels Program (2001-2010), the Istanbul Program (2011-2020), and the Doha Program of Action (2022-2031) etc.; promised preferential access and support, these opportunities rarely translated into sustained industrial and export led growth. ITC Geneva suggests Nepal could lose over four percent of export income due to tariff changes post-graduation. 

Traditional sectors such as carpets and garments already face steep disadvantages, with production costs nearly 25 percent higher than competitors like Bangladesh. The current economic model, reliant on remittances and consumption, is unsustainable. Each year, more than half a million young Nepalis leave to work abroad, a stark indicator of systemic failure. To reverse this trend, the RSP government must pivot toward domestic production and export-led growth. Nepal’s fertile river basins and abundant hydroelectricity provide a foundation for industries such as agro-processing, dairy, fertilizer production, data centers, tourism, advancing bio energy like biochar production and manufacturing establishment. Rather than exporting energy cheaply, Nepal should harness it to power local industries and generate high-value goods for exporting regional and global markets.

Building a productivity system

Nepal’s survival after graduating from LDC status will hinge on productivity. Today, policy uncertainty, high tariffs, and inadequate connectivity networks inflate costs and discourage investment and productivity. Freight expenses alone add nearly 20 percent to production costs, eroding competitiveness. A productivity-centered agenda must therefore streamline regulations, strengthen connectivity across mountainous terrain, marginal river basins and ensure reliable electricity for services, processing, and storage. 

Tourism and agriculture—forestry: two pillars of Nepal’s economy require urgent modernization. The tourism sector must prioritize value per worker through digital transformation, diversification of destinations, standardized services, and improved connectivity. Regions such as Kanchenjunga demand trail standardization and initiatives toward establishing a Man and Biosphere (MAB) reserve, capable of attracting higher-value international visitors. Agriculture, likewise, must integrate modern market infrastructure, logistics, and processing to move beyond subsistence farming and basic tour guiding.

This transition requires a sequenced agenda: first, strengthening extension service agencies and regulatory institutions; then enabling firms to adopt new technologies that can compete in regional and global markets. Ultimately, economic sovereignty depends on coordination among the Ministry of Finance, the Central Bank, and sectoral ministries. Traditional fiscal and monetary policies must be reframed, alongside a critical reassessment of three decades of liberal economic policy and the Sixteenth Five-Year Plan. 

Federal ministries, often lethargic in their working style, must undergo reform. Policy frameworks should guide sectoral strategies, programs, and projects, while federal grants must empower subnational governments to foster innovation rather than perpetuate political patronage. If Nepal fails to transition from a remittance-dependent economy to a productive, export-led system, the overwhelming public mandate for change will be squandered. The path forward requires unified commitment to international standards and a resilient productivity agenda. Only then can Nepal sustain growth beyond the safety net of LDC status and achieve the economic sovereignty that has remained elusive for decades. 

Nepal has survived things that would have broken many countries going through similar situations. A decade-long armed conflict, two devastating earthquakes, frequent political protests, seven constitutions in seventy-five years, dozens of governments that rose and fell before completing a single term, and yet the country persists—borders intact (more or less), democracy functioning if imperfectly, institutions battered but breathing.

This resilience is real and worth acknowledging. Nepal has been remarkably good at surviving. It has been considerably less good at thriving. The question worth asking, especially as a new political chapter opens with the RSP-led majoritarian government, is this: why has Nepal been unable to turn its resilience into genuine transformation? The answer is not complicated, but it is uncomfortable. Nepal has struggled to thrive not primarily because of its geography, or its neighbors, or the indifference of international donors. It has struggled because of its own politics and the historic regime changes could not deliver the promises.

The problem is closer to home than we pretend.

Look at where Nepal stands on the indices that matter. According to the recent Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index, it ranks 109th out of 180 countries. The Economist Intelligence Unit classifies its democracy as a ‘hybrid regime’. No government since 1990 has completed a full five-year term. The average tenure of a Prime Minister has been under a year and a half. These are not statistics exclusively produced by geopolitics. They are largely produced by political elites who have treated governance as a bargaining chip rather than a public duty.

The consequences have been predictable. Citizens have lost confidence in state delivery of basic services. Young people, over 1,800 of them every single day, are leaving the country. The Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom ranks Nepal 131st out of 184 nations, classifying it as ‘mostly unfree’. Social inequality remains stark: Dalits, Janajatis, Madheshi communities, and women have been historically excluded from wealth and opportunity despite a constitution that promises otherwise.

This is the central tragedy of Nepal’s last few decades. The country completed a historically remarkable triple transition—from monarchy to republic, from Hindu state to secular state, from unitary to federal system—and then largely squandered the political goodwill and institutional energy that transition generated. The problem is not that the transformation happened. The problem is that it was left half-finished and elite-captured.

Democracy needs deeper roots

Political change in Nepal has repeatedly meant a change in faces rather than a change in systems. Parties have rotated through power. Coalitions have formed, collapsed, and re-formed. New political movements, including the RSP and independent candidates, have emerged with genuine public enthusiasm. But enthusiasm is not a governance system. The hard work of democratic consolidation such as building independent institutions, protecting press freedom, strengthening accountability mechanisms, expanding civic participation has lagged far behind the political drama.

This matters enormously because a democracy that exists only on paper cannot generate the moral authority a country needs to actually lead itself, let alone engage the world with confidence. The Economist Intelligence Unit places Nepal 98th on its global democracy index. According to Reporters Without Borders, its press freedom score, once the highest in South Asia, has declined in recent years. These are not minor footnotes. They are signals of a democracy that is, at best, stagnant.

Until domestic politics is genuinely reformed, and until democracy is deepened rather than just performed, leadership changes will not translate into different outcomes. The problem is not who sits in Singhadurbar. The problem is what kind of political culture surrounds whoever sits there.

A civic gap that nobody is filling

Equally important, and often overlooked, is the question of citizens. Nepal's social transition has created a curious paradox: rights consciousness has grown considerably in the recent decades, but civic responsibility has not kept pace. Rights discourse is strong; the culture of civic duty is weakening. Unionisation has advanced, but at times at the cost of civic engagement. Social media has amplified both information and misinformation. Young people are politically aware but institutionally alienated.

Nepal needs not just better politicians. It needs more critically engaged citizens who hold politicians accountable between elections and not just during them. The 2025 GenZ protests signalled something important: a generation that is deeply frustrated with the gap between what the constitution promised and what is actually delivered. That frustration is politically valuable only if it produces sustained civic participation rather than one-off street protests that fade without follow-through.

Foreign policy: Neither loudly sovereign nor quietly dependent

Nepal’s geopolitical position is one of the most discussed features of its situation, and also one of the most misunderstood. The country sits between India and China, two of the world’s most consequential powers, while also navigating pressure from the West on various occasions. The temptation, in such a situation, is to either double down on nationalist defiance or quietly accommodate whoever offers the best deal.

Both approaches are traps. Ultra-nationalist posturing has real costs. It closes off productive economic and development cooperation. It makes it harder to attract investment, build connectivity infrastructure, or engage in regional and global trade agreements. The strong nationalist sentiment that has helped Nepal resist outright capture has, when taken to an extreme, also prevented the country from seizing legitimate strategic opportunities.

On the other hand, excessive deference to any single power, whether India, China, or the West, erodes the sovereignty that gives small states their only real protection. Nepal has already experienced what happens when infrastructure built with one neighbour's investment struggles to function because of another neighbour's policies. Dependence is not neutrality; it is vulnerability with a friendlier name.

The real path forward is a balanced, sovereignty-oriented foreign policy built on something Nepal currently lacks but desperately needs: moral credibility. A Nepal that ranks higher on governance, lower on corruption, deeper on democracy, and more inclusive in its economic distribution is a Nepal that can engage India, China, and the West from a position of earned confidence rather than transactional dependency. Foreign policy strength begins at home.

The questions that cannot be avoided

Nepal's situation also raises harder, longer-range questions that politicians prefer to leave unanswered. Can a landlocked country build genuine economic sovereignty without trading away meaningful autonomy in the process? Can political stability be sustained without first achieving social stability and completing a genuine post-conflict reconciliation? As the global rule-based order weakens under great-power competition, what protections actually remain for small states that cannot offer military alliances or large markets?

These are not rhetorical questions. They are urgent ones. And the fact that Nepal has arrived at this political moment, with new leaders, renewed public energy, and real expectations, without clear answers to any of them suggests that the country may be about to repeat a familiar pattern: change at the top, stagnation underneath.

Survival was never the final goal

Nepal has earned its reputation for resilience. But a nation of thirty million people, sitting on enormous hydropower potential, possessing extraordinary cultural heritage, and home to a young population that is globally connected and politically awakened, deserves more than a reputation for surviving.

The test for this generation of leaders is whether they can move Nepal from a country that endures to a country that delivers. That means fixing domestic politics in a way that is structural and not cosmetic. It means deepening democracy beyond elections. It means cultivating civic culture as seriously as economic policy. And it means pursuing a foreign policy that is neither reflexively defiant nor quietly submissive, but grounded in the kind of governance and moral credibility that gives a small nation real standing in a competitive and turbulent world.

Nepal has always found a way to stand back up. The more important question now is whether it is ready to actually move forward.

The author is a Visiting Research Fellow at the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame, USA

The post-Cold War world order of the 1990s set the tone with a thrust on transparency in political democratization. The international wave was so strong that developing countries like Nepal were swept along, readily embracing policies deeply engrained in the changed global landscape. International financial and socio-economic development institutions forcefully advocated for extensive transparency in every action and decision of governments, so that citizens could enjoy unencumbered access to information, thereby strengthening democratic values and paving the way for good governance.

Nepal, on one hand, suffered from becoming a mere market for foreign products, which narrowed its export base and severely undermined national economic growth, and on the other, in the name of transparency, state's confidential and secret matters were either leaked or slipped through the cracks. This situation, inevitably, exposed national security to serious vulnerabilities. These two pillars of democratic governance—transparency and secrecy—often pull in opposite directions, but both are indispensable for the effective functioning of government. While practicing them in  day-to-day activity of the government, maintaining a logical and practical balance between them had become increasingly essential, due to Nepal’s vulnerable position shaped by its geostrategic location.

There is no denying that transparency enhances the ability and capacity of citizens to rigorously scrutinize the actions and performances of the government, thereby promoting accountability and reinforcing institutional credibility. When transparency prevails, citizens remain well-informed and safeguard against the misuse of state power. In a democratic government, if decisions are taken in camera and the processes remain shrouded in opacity, the values and norms of democracy begin to decay, making pliable ground for the rise of autocracy or even monocracy.  With its paramount importance in democratic structure, transparency stands as a keystone of good governance, which contributes to fostering public trust in government. Transparency does not mean being naked, rather, it signifies being decent.

Security realm

Given its inherently sensitive domain, national security always perceives absolute transparency as a latent threat to the nation's survival.  Protecting critical and important information, which affects the sovereignty and  national unity of Nepal, is basically a matter of maintaining complete secrecy. Within this milieu of national security, there always stands a pressing challenge in striking a sensible balance between openness and confidentiality. There was a time when tensions frequently arose between information seekers and information providers.

Many times, information seekers were compelled to knock on the door of the National Information Commission. Only after issuing the formal directives by the Commission, the concerned officials provided the requested information or documents.  In a few cases, the Commission has also imposed a fine on those officials who did not comply with its directives. This situation brought two institutions—the Commission and the concerned ministry—in a state of tug- of-war.

Later, all the ministries classified certain official documents as confidential. In response to such decisions, information seekers raised questions about the intentions of the government. They alleged that the government's motive was to hide information—an affront to democratic values and constitutional rights.

In a democratic system, transparency empowers citizens to consistently scrutinize government actions, which helps reduce corruption. Transparency is not merely a tool for good governance, rather it is a democratic necessity.  In view of this, transparency in government operations, particularly in areas such as procurement, service delivery, decision-making for the welfare of citizens, is indispensable. In the pursuit of openness, the government’s decisions must not be compromised with national security.

At one side, there is a constitutional right to information, which unequivocally states that ‘every citizen shall have the right to demand or receive information on any matter of personal or public interest’.  On the other hand, its restrictive clause stipulates that ‘no person shall be compelled to disclose information that is required to be kept confidential by law’. There is a thin and delicate line between these two versions that should be distinguished through a patriotism-oriented interpretation. While disclosing the sensitive information, all concerned must give paramount consideration to the national interest and national security imperatives. National security policy is the umbrella policy encompassing all sectoral policies, such as industrial, economic, agriculture, health and education policies.

National security operates in different realms—basically with internal and external threats, intelligence operations, defense, internal security, sensitive national issues, and diplomatic negotiations. Premature or excessive disclosure can jeopardise national interests. Such an activity weakens the nation in particular. It must be taken into mind that in such a situation, secrecy can not be a choice but a necessity.

Some of the government’s responsible persons have developed a tendency of being vocal, believing that their respective ministries are superior to others and that their policy decisions need not comply with the national security policy. If such a mindset prevails, the entire government’s line ministries cannot work in unison in pursuit of national interests. No ministry can function in isolation, rather, a collective and coordinated effort must be reflected in their working styles—avoiding the repetition of past mistakes.

In order to cultivate a culture of responsible governance, officials must be trained to discern the 'fine line' between transparency and secrecy. Their ethical conduct, reinforced by professionalism, should guide them in identifying the delicate boundary. A mature working culture is a must to understand that these two are not adversaries but rather complementary gears serving different purposes.

Home Minister Sudhan Gurung resigned from his post on Wednesday.

Gurung, who was appointed as Home Minister on March 27, resigned just after 26 days in office.

Gurung was under pressure from all sides to resign after being embroiled in the share-related controversy.

He submitted his resignation to Prime Minister Balen Shah on Wednesday, urging authorities to conduct a fair investigation into the matter.

Following his resignation, he stated that morality is greater than position for him.

“I have resigned from the post of Home Minister effective from today itself with the aim of ensuring  that there is an impartial investigation into the matters related to me, there should be no 'conflict of interest' and  impact on it," he wrote, announcing his resignation on the social site.

He said, "I, from my side, have fulfilled my moral responsibility. Now my appeal is --dear journalist friends, Nepali brothers, sisters and youths, if we truly want change, we all should stand on the path of truth, honesty and self- righteousness."