1 week Ago By Golam Rasul, Ph.D.
Nepal experienced a defining moment in its political history in 2008 when it transitioned from a centuries-old monarchy to a federal democratic republic. This historic shift driven by Jana Andolan II (People's Movement II) ended over 200 years of Shah dynasty rule and united the nation in a collective pursuit of democracy, equality and inclusivity. Nepal adopted an interim constitution in 2007 and formally declared itself a federal democratic republic in 2008.
The new governance structure established federal, provincial and local tiers to decentralise power and promote inclusivity. The promulgation of the 2015 Constitution further reinforced these principles, guaranteeing representation for marginalised groups such as women, Dalits and ethnic minorities. Widely considered as one of the world's most progressive constitutions, it reflects Nepal's commitment to social justice and equity while addressing poverty and inequalities.
The democratic transition ignited hope and aspirations among the people for greater equality, prosperity and a better life, free from poverty and hardship. Ironically, less than two decades later, many are now calling for the return of the very monarchy they once rejected. The ongoing pro-monarchy protests in Nepal have raised critical questions as to what went wrong.
Why did people become disillusioned with democracy so quickly? Some argue that anti-democratic forces are fueling unrest to undermine democracy and advocate for restoration of the Hindu state, which might be partly true but does not fully explain the situation. To understand the pro-monarchy sentiment, it is essential to examine economic challenges, political instability, unfulfilled promises and development failures fueling public dissatisfaction and resentment. Post 2008, political instability has remained a persistent challenge in Nepal, with 13 different governments in just 16 years.
The political landscape has become deeply polarised and factionalised, dominated by three major parties: the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre), the CPN-UML and the Nepali Congress. Rather than focusing on implementing political commitments and national development, these parties are preoccupied with power struggles and internal conflicts. The country's fragile coalition governments struggle to provide the policy stability necessary to attract both domestic and foreign investment.
As a result, the manufacturing sector-despite its potential to generate large-scale employment-remains underdeveloped. The country remains heavily reliant on remittances, which account for nearly 25 per cent of its GDP. Furthermore, Nepal's exports remain minimal, accounting for less than 7 per cent of GDP.
Although, Nepal has made progress in social sectors such as education, health, transportation, infrastructure development and poverty reduction since 2008, significant economic challenges remain. Nepal is expected to graduate from Least Developed Country (LDC) status in 2026. However, this milestone is overshadowed by persistent political instability, weak governance, the lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and the challenges posed by global economic volatility.
Political turbulence has led to frequent policy shifts, creating uncertainty that significantly hampers domestic and foreign investments. Major hydropower projects awarded to foreign firms by one administration have often been cancelled or reassigned by subsequent governments, seemingly for political gains. Such inconsistencies erode investor confidence, stall critical infrastructure projects and hinder Nepal's ability to leverage its natural resources for sustainable economic growth.
Political instability, inadequate investment and weak governance have significantly exacerbated Nepal's unemployment crisis, fueling political frustration and compounding challenges to democratic stability. The unemployment rate surged from 11.4 per cent in 2017-18 to 12.
6 per cent in 2022-23, with youth unemployment remaining alarmingly high at 20.52 per cent. Limited job opportunities, combined with slow economic expansion, have forced many youths to seek employment abroad, perpetuating Nepal's reliance on remittances.
Political instability and administrative inefficiencies have undermined good governance and accountability in Nepal. Parties are often accused of shielding corrupt individuals and promoting favouritism, nepotism and bhagbanda-the division of power among elites. Corruption, estimated to cost the country up to US$ 3.
3 billion annually, distorts resource allocation, weakens public services and deepens economic hardship. An inefficient and unresponsive bureaucracy further erodes public trust by failing to deliver essential services. Nepal's inefficient public service delivery has deepened socio-economic challenges.
Despite adopting a progressive and inclusive constitution and embracing federalism, institutional effectiveness remains elusive. In the global government effectiveness index, Nepal ranked 149 among 193 countries in the world and the lowest in South Asia. The current political tension is a glaring example of how even the most progressive and inclusive constitution can fail when implemented by ineffective governments.
Nepal's experience demonstrates an important lesson: a constitution alone does not ensure good governance, political stability or economic development. To translate democratic ideals into meaningful action and tangible developmental outcomes, political stability, effective governance, sound policy implementation and accountability are essential. For Nepal's democratic system to thrive, it must deliver political stability, good governance and concrete economic benefits.
If these fundamental expectations are not realised, public disillusionment is likely to persist, increasing the challenges to democratic stability..
