By Narayan Prasad Mishra
The Reality of Bad Governance in Nepal
Nepal has undergone numerous political transitions, from a Rana autocratic regime to a monarchy and a multiparty democratic republic with secular and federal states. However, despite these changes, governance has remained weak; not only has our country remained weak, but it has gone from bad to worse. Instead of focusing on national progress, political parties have been more engaged in power struggles, favoritism, and corruption. Nepotism dominates public institutions, and bureaucratic inefficiency has led to failures in delivering essential services such as affordable food, shelter, healthcare, education, electricity, water, and infrastructure like roads and suspension bridges in many remote areas.
Corruption is rampant at all levels of government in Nepal. The numerous scandals investigated by the Central Investigation Bureau (CIB) and the Commission for Investigation on Abuse of Authority (CIAA), the court cases filed and verdicts delivered, the persistent debates in parliament, the constant media coverage, and the ongoing public discourse are clear evidence of the severity of the issue. The political elite frequently misuse state resources for personal gain, while development projects are plagued by mismanagement and delays. Although laws exist to combat corruption, enforcement remains selective and ineffective. Citizens often find themselves forced to pay bribes for basic government services, reinforcing a system that benefits only the powerful.
Economic mismanagement further exacerbates the issue. Despite Nepal’s potential in hydropower, tourism, and agriculture, the country remains highly dependent on remittances from migrant workers abroad. Government policies often lack long-term vision, and bureaucratic red tape discourages investment and entrepreneurship. As a result, job opportunities are scarce, leading many young Nepalese to seek employment overseas rather than contribute to their nation’s development.
Our country, though rich in history, cultural heritage, and natural resources, has struggled with governance issues for decades. Recent news reports reveal that 7.3 million people have been cheated by corrupt cooperative operators closely linked to political parties. These victims are crying for justice, yet they have not been able to recover their money. At the same time, another equally large group is forced to seek employment abroad due to a lack of opportunities at home.
From political instability and corruption to ineffective administration, bad governance has become a defining characteristic of Nepal’s political landscape. Even from these statistics, it seems that almost half of the 30 million people are directly affected by the government’s unbearable bad governance and mismanagement. Yet, despite persistent failures in leadership, economic mismanagement, and a lack of accountability, the people of Nepal continue to tolerate these inefficiencies with remarkable patience. Whether educated or uneducated, politically affiliated or independent, Nepalese citizens are fully aware of the country’s deteriorating condition. They also recognize that the political parties and leaders who have ruled Nepal for over three decades are mainly responsible. I feel this is an unimaginable tolerance for the people of this country.
Still, they continue to vote for the same parties—the Nepali Congress, the UML, and the Maoist Center. Consequently, the same leaders—Sher Bahadur Deuba, Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli (K.P. Oli), and Pushpa Kamal Dahal (Prachanda)—have taken turns as Prime Minister, with few exceptions. Currently, we have a government led by K.P. Sharma Oli, chairman of the UML. There is no retirement clause, bar, or period for the political positions, whether they are weak or strong, old or feeble, fit or unfit. We see many other young, bright, intelligent, dynamic people in all parties who can drive the nation in a far better way, but they can not dare to be candidates for the party’s president or the prime ministership.
I find this profoundly puzzling. It remains a great mystery to me. I often ask myself why this continues to happen. After much thought, I believe the following factors contribute to this mystery of people’s tolerance.
1. Historical Conditioning
Nepalese society has long been accustomed to accepting authority without question. Centuries of autocratic Rana rule and rigid hierarchical structures have ingrained a culture of obedience, where people are taught to endure hardships rather than challenge the system. Even after Nepal transitioned to democracy, this mindset persisted, making people less likely to demand accountability from their leaders.
We also have a culture of worshipping power and seeking personal gain through political influence. This culture is clearly reflected in political parties, where members, including parliamentarians, blindly follow their party leaders—whether right or wrong—in exchange for positions and privileges. Those who stand for truth and justice are often sidelined and suffer as a result.
2. Political Disillusionment
The repeated failure of governments to bring meaningful change has led to widespread disillusionment. Many Nepalese have lost faith in the political system, believing that no matter who comes to power, corruption and inefficiency will persist. This resignation fosters political apathy, where people expect little from their leaders and, therefore, do not actively protest against bad governance.
3. Lack of Awareness and Civic Engagement
A significant portion of Nepal’s population, particularly in rural areas, lacks access to education and independent media. Many are unaware of their rights or the extent of corruption within the government. Furthermore, political parties have skillfully used propaganda, populist rhetoric, and identity politics to manipulate public opinion, preventing the rise of a strong civic movement for change.
4. Survival Priorities
For many Nepalese, daily survival takes precedence over political activism. Poverty, unemployment, and the struggle for necessities leave little time or energy for people to engage in protests or demand better governance. Reliance on remittances also plays a role—many young people, rather than fighting for change at home, choose to work abroad, further weakening internal pressure on the government.
5. Fragmented Opposition and Fear of Instability
Despite widespread dissatisfaction with governance, there is no unified opposition movement to demand reform. Civil society organizations and activist groups exist, but they are often fragmented and lack the strength to bring about systemic change. Additionally, Nepal’s history of political upheaval—including a decade-long civil war—has made people wary of instability. Many prefer a flawed government over the chaos that could come from radical change.
6. A Self-Centered Culture
Nepalese society prioritizes individual and familial interests over collective well-being. From an early age, people are taught to think primarily about themselves, their families, and their immediate circles rather than the broader community. This mindset extends into political parties, where members unite for personal and group benefits rather than the greater good. Unfortunately, we are bound to see more of this tendency in most of the prime political parties that were in government. We see almost all governments are involved in corruption scandals, nepotism, favoritism, and mismanagement. But, their parliamentarians and followers neither voice nor protest against it as they do against other opposition parties. They justify any wrongdoing committed by themselves or their immediate circles and escape punishment, while the same actions by others are treated as crimes deserving punishment. This double standard is evident in numerous scandals, including the Fake Bhutanese Refugee Corruption Scandal and the Cooperative Operators Corruption Scandal. In such a system, how can we expect the welfare of the people or the flourishing of democracy?
I vividly recall the warnings given to my wife, Shanti Mishra, and me by friends and relatives. They advised us not to stand for justice or speak out against bad governance, mismanagement, irregularities, misdoings, or corruption in the university where we worked or in government if we wanted a peaceful and prosperous life. Some even believe that our dismissal from university jobs more than the decade before the retirement age with conspiracy, despite our dedication and competence, was a consequence of our unwillingness to conform to this culture of silence and sycophancy.
A Surprising Turn of Events
In this context, I was greatly surprised by the historic protest in Kathmandu on March 10, 2025, against the government and in favor of reinstating the monarchy. It was astonishing to witness the massive crowd expressing love and respect for King Gyanendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev upon his return from Pokhara. We know that multiparty leaders deny King Gyanendra the recognition of being addressed as “King Gyanendra” in a country where tradition and culture dictate respectful titles—such as “Karsaheb” and “Jarsaheb” for retired Colonels and Generals of the army and Kharidarsaheb and Subbasaheb for retired civil servants —based on past positions. It seems they are unwilling to add his former title—whether out of fear, hatred, or a disregard for history and its knowledge value. This unexpected demonstration suggests that Nepalese people, through their hardships, have finally realized that slogans of equality, justice, and democracy mean little without genuine action. The event even made international headlines, with coverage by CNN and other global media outlets.
I have always believed that Nepal’s monarchy was undemocratically removed by a parliament that owed its very existence to the King’s sovereign power and blessings. Even after establishing rules and procedures for the line of succession within the royal family, external conspiracies played a role in its downfall. Similarly, the introduction of a secular state and federalism was imposed against the will of the people based on the advice and opinions collected from the public without considering the actual needs of the country. As an independent citizen, I have written extensively about these issues in “People’s Review”.
I firmly believe that a constitutional monarchy, combined with full democracy, would be a far better system for Nepal than a politically selected and elected president. A king, unbiased toward any political party, could serve as a unifying and independent head of state, prioritizing the welfare of the nation over partisan interests. If King Gyanendra were to return, I hope he would emerge as a truly enlightened monarch by critically reflecting on his past mistakes and shortcomings. Likewise, I hope Nepal’s political parties and their leaders—especially those in power—will engage in deep self-evaluation, acknowledging their failures and misuse of power instead of merely shifting blame for the people’s dissatisfaction. I also hope they transform into enlightened leaders and parties, setting aside selfish motives and working selflessly for the development and well-being of the people.
For Nepal to progress, its citizens must awaken to their rights and responsibilities. They should actively contribute to the nation’s well-being—whether through honest labor, raising their voices, or writing. Breaking free from apathy, they must demand better governance. The mystery of their tolerance can only be solved when they recognize their collective power and refuse to accept a system that continuously fails them. In this way, we can foster a movement that not only challenges the status quo but also celebrates the positive changes taking place in the country.
Comments:
Leave a Reply