Spread the love

By P.R. Pradhan

A nation’s political system must guarantee stability, prosperity, and self-reliance. For this, internal revenues should sustain national expenses, and investments must favor productive sectors rather than unproductive ones. Government resources need to prioritize national security, infrastructural development, education, health, and science and technology, all underpinned by good governance, transparency, and the rule of law.

Nepal’s political journey since the 2006 People’s Movement and the 2015 Constitution has failed to deliver on these goals. Instead of empowering citizens, the system has expanded bureaucracy and dependency. Comparing fiscal priorities of the current federal republic with the Panchayat era shows a troubling reversal. During the Panchayat period, only 17 percent of spending went to non-productive areas while 67 percent was invested in development projects, and the tax rate was just 8 percent. Today, under federalism, development spending has fallen to 17 percent, non-productive expenditure has surged to 69 percent, and taxation has risen to 20 percent—among the highest in South Asia. Citizens face a heavier tax burden even as the government struggles to meet its expenses, resorting increasingly to loans.

In just the first quarter of the current fiscal year, the government borrowed one trillion rupees, nearly matched by what it spends on loan interest and repayments. Finance Minister Rameshwor Prasad Khanal has begun cutting small-scale projects to conserve resources. The core of this fiscal crisis lies in the expensive federal structure—seven provinces and 753 local bodies—that remain financially dependent on the center and lack self-sustainability. How long the federal government can continue to bear this burden remains uncertain.

To address this imbalance, deep structural reforms are essential. The provincial tier should be scrapped, the number of local bodies halved, and district coordination committees eliminated. The parliamentary system should also be streamlined by reducing the number of lawmakers. The proportional representation system, though designed for inclusivity, has been abused by parties to reward loyalists and should therefore be abolished. The National Assembly, instead of serving as a haven for retired politicians, should include experts and respected professionals who can guide policy with competence and integrity.

Recent government steps to reduce ministerial privileges, such as removing personal secretaries, are positive and should continue. More importantly, political leaders must transform their outlook—politics should not be a career for personal gain but a national service. Leaders should see themselves as servants of the people rather than masters of the state.

Policy priorities must shift toward strengthening national security, expanding access to quality education, developing modern health services, and promoting science and technology. By investing in technical education and healthcare, Nepal could develop into a regional hub for education and medical services, fostering both economic growth and global engagement.

In rethinking its governance model, Nepal should rely on its own history, culture, and social fabric instead of copying foreign systems. The monarchy’s traditional role merits reconsideration. Since its abolition, the country has experienced persistent instability, corruption, and economic decline. It is important to remember that the 2006 movement did not initially aim to abolish the monarchy or Nepal’s Hindu identity.

While some groups advocate for a directly elected executive head, such a system could be risky for Nepal. Concentrating power in one individual might weaken the checks and balances that safeguard democracy. Instead, Nepal needs a balanced system that prevents authoritarianism while ensuring accountability. Given Nepal’s delicate geopolitical location between India and China, the monarchy could serve as a stabilizing force, particularly in foreign affairs and national security—helping to strengthen diplomacy and defense institutions.

Nepal’s current constitutional trajectory has been heavily shaped by Western influence and externally drafted models imposed through the 2015 Constitution. The recent Gen-Z movement, which called for constitutional reform and a directly elected executive, reflects growing public disillusionment with the existing system. However, simply adopting Western-style systems that undermine Nepal’s socio-political values would only contribute to further chaos and instability.

As debate over political reform continues, national interest must guide all decisions. Nepal needs a governance system suited to its own soil—one that ensures democracy, accountability, and prosperity while safeguarding national unity and independence. The ultimate goal should be to build a sustainable political framework that reduces dependency, empowers citizens, and reflects the genuine aspirations of the Nepali people. Only through such a context-driven and self-reliant approach can Nepal achieve lasting stability and progress.