KATHMANDU, April 24: Nepal introduced a new constitution in September 2015, aspiring to usher in a new era of prosperity and democratic governance. One of the main expectations following the constitution’s promulgation was political stability. The hope was natural: the constitution institutionalized the sweeping political changes brought about by the decade-long Maoist insurgency and the people’s movement that wrested executive powers from the monarchy and restored them to elected representatives, ending a 240-year-old royal institution.
The new federal structure reshaped Nepal’s political landscape. Yet, nearly a decade later, political stability remains elusive. Instead of consolidating the gains of the republic, the country has witnessed the formation of seven different governments, each driven by shifting political alliances. Internal rifts within major parties, mounting public dissatisfaction and the resurgence of pro-monarchy groups calling for the reinstatement of a Hindu kingdom have all fueled fears that Nepal may again descend into deeper political uncertainty.
Saga of Instability
In any parliamentary democracy, changes in government are normal, especially when coalition dynamics shift. However, Nepal's problem is not just political instability—it is the lack of policy stability that has compounded governance challenges. Every change in government has ushered in significant shifts in policies, disrupting continuity and development efforts. This pattern has had profound consequences on economic growth and public trust. The 2017 elections had briefly raised hopes: a strong left alliance led to a stable government and notable economic gains. However, the COVID-19 pandemic, combined with deepening internal party conflicts, shattered this progress.
Since the promulgation of the federal democratic constitution in 2015, Nepal has experienced a rapid turnover of governments, cycling through seven leadership changes. CPN-UML Chairman KP Oli initially led the first government under the new constitution from October 2015 to August 2016, stepping down after losing majority support. CPN (Maoist Center) Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal then assumed office from August 2016 to May 2017, backed by the Nepali Congress (NC), before resigning under a power-sharing agreement. NC President Sher Bahadur Deuba took over from June 2017 to February 2018, concluding his term after elections.
Beauties, build the thick skin
UML Chairman Oli then made a triumphant return after the 2017 elections, leading from February 2018 to July 2021, only for his government to collapse following a Supreme Court verdict. Deuba resumed office from July 2021 to December 2022, amid judicial intervention. Dahal returned for a third term from December 2022 to July 2024, forming an unstable coalition with the UML, which ultimately collapsed after a failed vote of confidence. As of now, the political situation remains fluid, highlighting how elusive stability has been despite a decade under the new constitutional framework.
Roots of Instability
Nepal’s persistent instability can be attributed to a combination of interwoven factors. Successive governments have consistently failed to meet the expectations of the public, with widespread poverty, unemployment, and unfulfilled promises contributing to a growing sense of disenchantment. Political parties, plagued by deep internal factionalism, often prioritize power struggles within their ranks over the effective governance of the country. This internal discord is compounded by a weak democratic culture, where voters' aspirations are disregarded, state resources are misused, and corruption has become normalized, further eroding the integrity of democratic institutions. Additionally, Nepal’s strategic position between India and China, along with increasing US engagement through the Indo-Pacific Strategy, has amplified external pressures. Diplomatic missteps, such as secretive dealings and inconsistent foreign policy stances, have only deepened public alienation and mistrust, exacerbating the nation's instability.
Political systems around the world show that electoral structures matter: first-past-the-post systems like those in the US and the UK tend to produce more stable governments, whereas proportional representation systems, as seen in post-war Italy, often breed fragmentation and frequent changes. Nepal’s experience is not unique. Despite adopting a federal structure, the dividends of democracy have not reached the masses in Nepal. The COVID-19 crisis starkly revealed these weaknesses, where leaders prioritized political survival over public health.
Charting a Path Forward
Charting a path forward for Nepal demands a deliberate and sustained effort focused not just on political stability, but more crucially on policy stability. Political forces must rise above narrow partisan agendas and unite under a shared spirit of nationalism, prioritizing the country’s long-term interests over short-term gains. Good governance rooted in transparency, accountability, and strict adherence to constitutional principles must replace the prevailing culture of opportunism and corruption. At the same time, Nepal’s political culture must mature; parties need to foster internal democracy, embrace criticism, and collaborate across ideological divides to build consensus on vital national issues.
Addressing the deep economic grievances of citizens—by creating jobs, reducing poverty, and tackling inequality—remains equally critical to easing public frustration and restoring faith in the democratic system. On the international front, Nepal must skillfully navigate its strategic position between powerful neighbors while safeguarding its sovereignty and national interests. Finally, strengthening independent institutions like the judiciary, the election commission, and anti-corruption bodies is imperative to protect democratic processes and ensure that governance remains resilient, even amidst political transitions.
The Missing Link: Policy Stability
As political analyst Dr. Uddhab Pyakurel notes, the key issue is not merely government stability but policy stability.
“It is natural to see changes in government if we are committed to parliamentary democracy," Pyakurel argues. "However, the real question is whether policy directions shift every time the government changes. National consensus among major parties on critical areas—foreign policy, economy, governance—keeping national interests at the core is essential.”
Without a stable policy environment, even frequent government changes need not be disruptive. It is the inconsistency in development agendas, foreign policy positions, and economic strategies that creates uncertainty and hampers long-term growth.
Conclusion
Political instability has been the mother of all disorders hindering Nepal’s development and democratic consolidation. Yet, a more critical lens shows that the instability of policies—rather than governments—is the bigger obstacle. Nepal’s survival and success in a competitive global environment will depend not just on political stability, but on building a policy framework that remains consistent, credible and firmly rooted in the national interest, regardless of who is in power. Only then can Nepal realize the aspirations of its people and safeguard its sovereignty in an increasingly complex world.
