Nepal should reconsider its long-standing practice of appointing ministers from sitting MPs. Such changes are not just desirable—they are inevitable—given the mounting evidence of political instability if the country is to preserve the integrity of its parliamentary system and respond to growing public discontent. The Constitution of Nepal also allows for the selection of ministers from among MPs, and requires those appointed from outside parliament to secure membership within six months.
Corruption, patronage politics and weak legislative scrutiny have also increased as the country grapples with an alarming increase in election spending. Once MPs become ministers, they become entangled in the executive branch, reducing their ability and willingness to hold the government accountable. Moreover, since political positions are viewed as investments rather than responsibilities, the lure of ministerial appointments encourages excessive spending on parliamentary election campaigns.
In light of these anomalies, it is time to rethink this constitutional arrangement. Barring members of the House of Representatives from assuming ministerial positions would create a clear separation of powers, reduce political conflicts of interest and discourage the monetization of elections. Appointing ministers from outside parliament based on expertise and merit is the need of the hour. Doing so can help strengthen governance and restore citizens’ trust in Nepal’s democratic institutions.
A vicious cycle
Nepal’s elections are so expensive that only those with the support of wealthy or powerful donors can compete effectively. According to reports, despite our low GDP and per capita income, Nepal’s elections are estimated to be 147 times more expensive than those in neighboring India. Candidates for the 2022 general election have been reported to have taken on large amounts of personal debt or relied on opaque funding sources.
This financial burden does not end with victory. Elected members of the House of Representatives, who are deeply in debt from campaigns funded by private donations, often view ministerial appointments as a way to make up for the shortfall. Ministerial positions come with significant perks—salaries, allowances, and influence over budgets and contracts—that can be used for personal gains. When donors, often businesses or contractors, expect policy favors or government tenders, the stage is set for institutionalized corruption.
Corruption would be reduced if members of the House of Representatives were barred from becoming ministers. The parliamentary role alone reduces the opportunities for recovering the financial investments made in elections. Instead, candidates can focus on policy and public service, potentially reducing overall election costs through greater transparency and public financing reforms advocated by experts.
Erosion of accountability
Corruption in Nepal is not just an aberration but a systemic scourge that permeates every level of government. Transparency International’s 2024 Corruption Perceptions Index gave Nepal a dismal score of 34 out of 100, ranking it 100th out of 180 countries globally.
Political scandals abound. Senior politicians have been implicated in scams such as the fake Bhutanese refugee scam. In 2025 alone, more than a dozen high-profile cases involving former prime ministers and ministers in corruption came to light. These cases were at the center of the GenZ protests earlier this year. They exposed decades of systemic decay.
Appointing members of the House of Representatives as ministers exacerbates this by blurring the lines between the legislature and the executive, weakening the separation of powers necessary for checks and balances. This leads to incomplete separation, legislative flip-flopping and democratic unaccountability.
Parliament’s oversight and monitoring role is weakened when MPs play a dual role as ministers. Who checks on this when members of the executive are also legislators? This creates fertile ground for corruption. Ministers can influence resource allocations, agreements and policies without strong parliamentary oversight.
The legislature could reclaim its role as a watchdog by reserving ministerial positions for technocrats or experts from outside parliament.
In Nepal, this could disrupt the “vicious cycle” where high election costs push politicians into ministerial positions for corrupt gains, as noted in the analysis of campaign finance.
A path forward
The recent youth protests that forced a change of government in less than 28 hours on charges of corruption signal a public mandate for systemic change.
The political upheaval reflects a powerful public demand for deep, structural reforms. This uprising has exposed a critical truth that Nepal’s democratic institutions can no longer function effectively under the old structures that reward money, favoritism and power-brokers in public service.
In this context, the proposal to bar members of the House of Representatives (HoR) from appointing ministers is not an attack on the parliamentary system but a step toward strengthening it. Such a reform would encourage political parties to elect parliamentarians who are truly committed to their legislative duties, while also enabling the formation of an executive.
Implementing this reform may ultimately require constitutional amendments to formalize the separation of legislative and executive responsibilities. Prioritizing non-parliamentarians in cabinet formation and making appointments based on merit could initiate positive change through political practice.
Nepal can no longer sustain a system where skyrocketing election costs and widespread corruption reinforce each other. By clearly separating membership in the House of Representatives from ministerial ambitions, the country must remove financial incentives that distort democratic competition. This can strengthen accountability and rebuild trust in public institutions. The Election Commission and the interim government must recognize the urgency of reform. They must act decisively for the nation’s democratic future. Otherwise, another wave of citizen-led opposition may begin.
