Submit your Article

The principle of the separation of powers is a fundamental principle in the structure of modern democratic governance. It divides governmental powers into three branches: the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. The idea behind this separation is to prevent any single branch from accumulating too much power, ensuring a system of checks and balances that maintains democratic integrity and upholds the rule of law. In theory, each branch operates independently and acts as a counterbalance to the others, safeguarding individual freedoms and preventing authoritarian rule.

In the context of Nepal, the separation of powers has faced significant challenges in the post-republic era, particularly after the abolition of the monarchy in 2008. While the country formally transitioned into a republic, the violation of the principle of separation of powers has led to institutional weaknesses and the erosion of democratic values. This article explores the significance of the separation of powers in a democratic system, examines instances of its violation in Nepal’s post-republic era and highlights the consequences for the nation’s democratic health.

Importance of separation of powers

The separation of powers plays a crucial role in preventing the abuse of power by ensuring that no single entity has control over all aspects of governance. By dividing authority among different branches of government, each one serves as a check on the others, protecting citizens’ rights and preventing any one branch from becoming too dominant.

This system also promotes accountability. When power is shared, the legislature can scrutinize the actions of the executive, and the judiciary ensures that laws are applied fairly and impartially. This encourages transparency and makes those in power answerable to the public.

One of the most important aspects of the separation of powers is its role in safeguarding individual freedoms. The judiciary acts as a guardian of constitutional rights, ensuring that neither the executive nor the legislature can infringe upon fundamental freedoms. This protection helps to maintain a free and just society.

Moreover, the separation of powers contributes to the stability of governance. By distributing power among different branches, it helps counterbalance fluctuations or the concentration of power in any one area. This balance prevents instability and ensures that the government remains fair and resilient, even during times of political change.

Violation unabated

Nepal, after the declaration of the republic in 2008, adopted a democratic framework based on the principle of the separation of powers. However, the country’s post-monarchical era has seen numerous violations of this principle, which have had serious repercussions on the health of Nepalese democracy.

Executive overreach, legislative subjugation

One of the primary violations in Nepal’s recent history involves the dominance of the executive branch over the legislature. Since the reemergence of the parliamentary party system in Nepal in 1990, the House of Representatives has been dissolved six times. The fifth dissolution occurred on 20 Dec 2020, when Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, acting on the recommendation of his cabinet, advised President Bidya Devi Bhandari to dissolve the House. President Bhandari accepted the recommendation the same day and announced that elections would be held in two phases: 30 April and 10 May 2021.

However, on 23 Feb 2021, the Supreme Court ruled that the dissolution of the House of Representatives was unconstitutional and ordered its reinstatement. The court issued a mandamus, directing that the House be convened within 13 days. As a result of the ruling, a session of the House was held on 7 March 2021.

In the sixth instance, on 22 May 2021, Prime Minister Oli again recommended to President Bhandari the dissolution of the House and the scheduling of mid-term elections for 12 Nov and 19 Nov 2021. The President accepted the recommendation, and the House of Representatives was dissolved once again, with the election dates announced accordingly.

Impeachment

In Feb 2021, Nepal’s ruling parties filed an impeachment motion against Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana, making him the second chief justice in the country’s history to face such a motion, following Sushila Karki in 2017. At the time, the Nepali Congress, the CPN (Maoist Center) and CPN (Unified Socialist) supported the motion against Rana, with Sher Bahadur Deuba as prime minister. The motion against Karki, filed in 2017, was led by Congress lawmaker Min Bahadur Bishwakarma, while the current motion against Rana was proposed by key figures from the ruling parties.

Karki’s impeachment led to her suspension and Gopal Parajuli temporarily taking over, with Rana later staying the motion. After Parajuli’s resignation, Rana became chief justice in 2019. Now, almost five years later, Rana faces his own impeachment motion, primarily due to accusations of corruption, misconduct and failure to perform his duties.

Consequences

When one branch of government begins encroaching on the others, it weakens the very foundation of democratic institutions. The independence and effectiveness of these institutions are compromised, leading to a loss of public trust in the democratic process. Over time, this erosion of faith increases the risk of authoritarianism taking root.

In Nepal, the manipulation of the separation of powers has contributed to political instability. Political parties often use state institutions to consolidate their own power, which has led to ongoing factionalism and conflict. This pattern is evident in the frequent changes in government leadership and the breakdown of the political system, leaving the country in a state of uncertainty.

For the people of Nepal, this constant political drama has led to growing disillusionment. The disregard for constitutional principles has made citizens skeptical of the political process, which in turn has resulted in lower voter participation. This disillusionment weakens the democratic process and erodes public support for democratic governance.

The lack of independence in the judiciary has further exacerbated this situation. When the legal system is not allowed to operate free from political influence, citizens lose confidence in it. Corruption, bias and the absence of fair justice create a culture of impunity, where political interests subvert the rule of law and undermine justice for all.

Conclusion

The separation of powers is essential in maintaining a healthy and functioning democracy. It ensures that power is not concentrated in the hands of one branch of government and that each branch can check the excesses of the others. Nepal’s post-republic era has been marked by several violations of this principle, leading to political instability, diminished trust in democratic institutions and public disillusionment with governance.

To restore the integrity of Nepal’s democracy, it is crucial to uphold the separation of powers and strengthen the independence of each branch of the state. Without this, the nation risks further undermining its democratic progress and succumbing to authoritarian tendencies. Only through respect for the separation of powers can Nepal ensure a more accountable, transparent and vibrant democracy for future generations.

The tragic loss of Prakriti Lamsal, a 20-year-old BTech (third year) Computer Science student at the Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (KITT) in Bhubaneswar, has once again brought to the fore the issue of safety and security of Nepali students studying abroad, India in particular.

Details of what exactly happened on the KITT premises in the evening of February 13 remain quite sketchy, despite widespread media coverage in both India and Nepal as most of the students had gone to attend the institute’s foundation day.  Media reports, quoting friends and batchmates, suggest that the young girl from Butwal was in a toxic relationship with another BTech Mechanical (third year) student identified as Advik Shrivastava (21) from Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. Tapes of a conversation between the two have surfaced, giving an indication of the extent of abuse that the young girl may have been facing for quite some time, something which some of her friends have also alluded to.

As the case unfolds, there are ample reasons to believe that this tragic loss of life may have gone unnoticed had some of her courageous friends not dared to share it with media outlets despite considerable threats to their well-being via a messaging app.

These reports also suggest that the abusive and unhealthy relationship was no secret for the institute in question as the young, courageous and bright girl had lodged her complaint against the abuser at the International Relations Office. The office intervened to an extent, but there is every reason to believe that it could have done a lot more to protect an international student with hardly any support system in the host country from an abusive relationship.

On the contrary, its staff, including teachers, made a desperate attempt to cover up the entire incident by seeking to silence fellow students demanding justice through unsavory words against Nepal and the use of brute force. As part of that attempt, they forced hundreds of protesting Nepali students to leave the facility, threatening to unleash police against them if they did not oblige.

With no money to foot their travel expenses, hundreds of Nepali students are on their way home amid an appeal (and apologies) from the institute to return for the resumption of their studies even as smoke from their friend’s funeral pyre billows in a faraway Swargadwari (Pyuthan district) just days after her aggrieved father demanded justice and fair treatment for Nepali students in the pilgrimage town of Bhubaneshwar.

Amid a never-ending news cycle, this story may get lost with the government of Nepal already feeling, perhaps, that it has done enough in this case and the institute also thinking that token steps like a scholarship honoring the student and action against some of its loudmouths will restore its reputation.

If our government thinks that a phone conversation or two and a dispatch of officials from the embassy in New Delhi are enough in a case like this, it is mistaken. The traumatized students may hesitate to return to the institution out of safety concerns. Who will be responsible for the impact of this incident on their studies and their future?

Who, if not the government of our country, will make sure that the young girl and her family get justice?

The government should move ahead with extreme sensitivity, keeping in mind that any leniency on its part may expose Nepalis studying abroad to greater risks in the coming days. 

In his first tenure as President of the United States, Donald J Trump’s familiarity with Nepal was, at best, minimal. During a 2017 meeting, he reportedly mispronounced Nepal as “nipple” and humorously referred to Bhutan as “button.”  These incidents, while seemingly trivial, underscored a broader lack of US’s engagement with small nations. However, as Trump began his second term on 20 Jan 2025, his approach to Nepal appeared to shift.

This time, not only did he correctly pronounce the country’s name, but he also delved into specific projects funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in Nepal. For instance, he controversially labeled a $20m allocation for fiscal federalism in Nepal as a “fraud,” though he failed to elaborate on why he held this view. This statement, while brief, has had significant repercussions in Nepal, particularly among anti-federal forces who have long argued that federalism is a foreign-imposed agenda.

Trump’s comments have provided a significant boost to these anti-federal forces, who are actively working to dismantle Nepal’s 2015 constitution. For years, these groups have claimed that federalism is not an indigenous concept but rather a product of foreign influence. Trump’s assertion that USAID’s funding for federalism is fraudulent has been interpreted by these groups as validation of their stance. As a result, many anti-federalists have become vocal supporters of Trump, believing that his administration aligns with their opposition to federalism. This development has added a new layer of complexity to Nepal’s domestic politics, as the debate over federalism continues to polarize the nation.

The impact of Trump’s policies on Nepal extends far beyond rhetoric. In late January 2025, Trump issued an executive order pausing all US foreign assistance for 90 days. While this move has affected numerous countries, its impact on Nepal has been particularly severe. Unlike larger nations such as China, which have been primarily affected by Trump’s trade tariffs, Nepal’s reliance on foreign aid makes it especially vulnerable to aid cuts. For a country that has long depended on international assistance to support its economy, health, education, and infrastructure, the suspension of US aid has been nothing short of devastating.

The immediate effects of the aid suspension are already being felt. From small stationary shops to five-star hotels, businesses that relied on the patronage of NGOs and INGOs funded by USAID are experiencing significant downturns. Stationary shop owners report a sharp decline in sales, as NGOs were among their primary customers. Similarly, hotels that once hosted events organized by international organizations are now struggling to maintain their revenue streams. Domestic airlines have also been hit hard, with a noticeable reduction in flights to major cities like Pokhara, Surkhet, Kailali, and Biratnagar, where NGO activities were once frequent. While precise numerical data on the economic impact of these changes is not yet available, it is clear that the suspension of US aid has disrupted one of the key drivers of Nepal’s hospitality and service sectors.

The ripple effects of the aid pause extend to local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that depend on USAID funding. Many of these organizations are now downsizing or shutting down entirely, as they receive termination notices for projects funded by USAID or its implementing partners. Over the past few years, USAID had shifted its approach, working directly with local NGOs in an effort to bypass Kathmandu-based partners that were seen as ineffective. This shift had led to the establishment of branch offices in provinces like Lumbini and Madhes, where many NGOs focused their activities. Now, these offices and their staff face an uncertain future, as the suspension of funding leaves them without the resources to continue their work.

The challenges are not limited to local NGOs. American institutions operating in Nepal are also grappling with the fallout from Trump’s executive order. Many are laying off staff and considering whether to close their offices altogether. The lack of clear guidance from US headquarters has left these organizations in a state of confusion, unsure of how to proceed. Some have already terminated employee contracts due to a lack of funds to pay salaries. Even organizations aligned with the Republican Party’s agenda are not immune to these challenges, as the pause on foreign assistance applies across the board.

One of the most significant casualties of Trump’s aid suspension is the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), a US-funded initiative that signed a $500m compact with Nepal in Sept 2017. The MCC compact aims to improve road quality, increase the availability and reliability of electricity, and facilitate cross-border electricity trade between Nepal and India. However, the project has been mired in controversy since its inception. From 2019 to 2022, the MCC became a divisive issue in Nepali society, with the country’s communist parties leading the charge against it. They argued that the MCC was part of the US Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS) and should be rejected. China also opposed the project, labeling it a “Pandora’s box” that could undermine Nepal’s sovereignty.

Despite these objections, the Joe Biden administration worked tirelessly to secure parliamentary approval for the MCC. Senior US officials reportedly pressured Nepali leaders, even threatening to review bilateral relations if the compact was not endorsed. In the face of this pressure, Nepal’s political parties eventually approved the MCC in 2022, accompanied by a declarative interpretation stating that the compact was not part of the IPS. Since then, MCC projects have been making steady progress. However, Trump’s decision to suspend all foreign assistance for 90 days has brought these projects to a halt, raising concerns about whether the MCC will meet its five-year deadline. The suspension has also reignited political debates over the MCC, with opponents seizing the opportunity to renew their calls for its cancellation.

The broader implications of Trump’s aid suspension are deeply concerning for Nepal. Over the past few decades, Nepal has become increasingly dependent on foreign aid to address critical challenges in areas such as education, health, and climate change. Rather than reducing this dependence, the country has seen it grow. The sudden withdrawal of US support has exposed Nepal’s vulnerability, as the government lacks the resources to fill the void left by the aid cuts. For example, the US has officially canceled $19m in funding for biodiversity conservation, a critical issue for Nepal, which is on the frontlines of climate change. The loss of this funding will have dire consequences for Nepal’s ecosystems, which are already experiencing shifts in species distribution and an increased risk of extinction for many native plants and animals.

The suspension of funds for fiscal federalism and the cancellation of regional projects will further exacerbate Nepal’s challenges. These cuts come at a time when the country is already grappling with political instability, economic uncertainty, and the ongoing effects of climate change. The Nepal government and political parties have yet to officially respond to the aid suspension, as they are waiting to see whether the US will resume support after the 90-day pause. However, early indications suggest that the Indo-Pacific region remains a top priority for the Trump administration, which could mean continued support for Nepal, albeit through new mechanisms or agencies.

Some analysts speculate that the Trump administration may offer increased assistance to Nepal in exchange for reduced engagement with China. There are already murmurs within Nepal’s diplomatic circles that the US could pressure Nepal to scale back its participation in China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), similar to what occurred in Panama. Additionally, there are concerns that the US may push Nepal to abandon its longstanding policy of non-alignment and align more closely with Western powers. Such a shift would represent a fundamental change in Nepal’s foreign policy, which has traditionally sought to maintain balanced relations with all major powers.

Given Nepal’s geopolitical position, experts argue that the country cannot afford to abandon its policy of non-alignment. Sandwiched between two regional giants, India and China, Nepal must navigate a delicate balancing act to preserve its sovereignty and independence. If the US ultimately decides to cut aid to Nepal, there are discussions within the political sphere about seeking support from other middle powers, such as the United Kingdom, Germany, South Korea, and Japan, to fill the void left by the US withdrawal. These countries are already exploring ways to support Nepal in critical areas if US assistance is not resumed after the 90-day pause.

The reduction of US influence in Nepal could be seen as a positive development for both India and China, which have long been wary of America’s growing presence in the region. However, it remains unclear how the Trump administration’s policies will evolve and how Nepal’s major political parties will respond to this new reality. Compounding the uncertainty is the fact that Nepal’s Embassy in the US is currently without an ambassador, as the newly appointed envoy has yet to assume office. In Kathmandu, think tanks and policy experts have begun deliberating on the potential impact of Trump’s policies and how Nepal should navigate this challenging period.

The Trump administration’s approach to Nepal has already shaken the foundations of the longstanding partnership between the two countries. The suspension of US aid is having far-reaching consequences, affecting everything from local businesses to large-scale infrastructure projects. As Nepal grapples with the fallout from these changes, it must also contend with the broader geopolitical implications of reduced US engagement. The coming months will be critical in determining the future of Nepal-US relations and the extent to which Nepal can adapt to this new reality.

The KP Sharma Oli administration’s decision to implement new legislation in Nepal aimed at controlling social media has encountered strong backlash, as supporters of free speech caution about significant risks to freedom of expression within the nation.

Communications and Information Technology Minister Prithvi Subba Gurung submitted the “Bill Concerning the Operation, Use, and Regulation of Social Media in Nepal” to the Upper House of the Federal Parliament on Jan 28, which has created controversy, with opposition parties such as the CPN (Maoist Center), journalist organizations, and civil society groups fiercely opposing it. 

The intended Bill aims to ensure that the operation and use of social media platforms are organized, safe, and systematic. Additionally, it aims to regulate these platforms by making both operators and users responsible and accountable “to foster social harmony and cultural tolerance.” 

Several aspects of the law are in conflict with Nepal’s constitution, and the use of ambiguous and incomplete terminology raises issues. Critics believe the government will use these loopholes to interpret the legislation in its favor. 

Another significant issue is the government’s direct participation as the plaintiff in all related cases, which gives authorities more power over how the law is defined and enforced.

Constitutional conflict over the Media Council Bill

The bill directly contradicts Articles 17 and 19 of Nepal’s Constitution. Article 17 preserves the right to freedom, declaring that “no one shall be deprived of personal liberty.” However, the bill goes beyond limiting personal freedom; it deliberately penalizes individuals for posting, sharing, liking, reposting, live streaming, subscribing, commenting, tagging, using hashtags, or referencing others on social media. 

Section 16(2) of the bill expressly forbids anyone from engaging in certain actions with malicious intent: “One must not post, share, like, repost, live stream, subscribe, comment, tag, use hashtags, or mention others on social media with malicious intent.” While the bill expressly criminalizes like or commenting, it fails to define “malicious intent,” making its interpretation problematic. Because the bill does not define the term’s scope or meaning, anyone charged under this clause could simply say, “I had no malicious intent,” making enforcement arbitrary and subjective.

The bill establishes a loophole through which government officials could potentially dodge accountability. If they violate the bill’s requirements, they can claim, “I did not act with malicious intent,” when the clause is triggered. It is uncertain whether they can evade blame.  The bill also has a provision for a fine of up to Rs 500,000. 

Furthermore, “ 19 of Nepal’s Constitution’ guarantees the right to communication, stating, “no prior censorship of publications and broadcasting, or information dissemination, or printing of any news item, editorial, article, feature, or other reading material, or the use of audio-visual material by any medium, including electronic publication, broadcasting and printing.”

Article 19(2) clearly states, “If there is any broadcasting, publishing or printing, or dissemination of news, article, editorial, feature, or other material through the medium of electronic equipment or the use of visuals or audio-visuals, no radio, television, online publication or any kind of digital or electronic equipment, or press, or other kind of media outlet, shall be closed, seized, or their registration cancelled for publishing, or transmitting, or broadcasting such material.”

However, the bill infringes this fundamental guarantee. Section 16(1)(a) of the bill recommends penalizing individuals for trolling photos. Where is the freedom to communicate?

Section 20 of the bill prohibits the release of confidential information, which is even more reprehensible. It will keep government defects, shortcomings, and pressing issues such as corruption, commissions, and bribery classified and concealed. If a journalist uncovers and exposes such information, they may face sanctions. This appears to be a clear implication. The government’s intention may be to conceal its weaknesses. It may seek to prosecute anyone who reveals such information.

The bill’s theoretical notion claims to “ensure the freedom of thought and expression as a fundamental right while safeguarding communication and confidentiality rights in electronic media,” however the reality appears to contradict this.

Malicious government intentions

Social media must be regulated in a number of areas. The bill does not simply contain negative provisions. However, the provisions described above violate citizens’ (users’) rights to free expression, privacy, and communication.  Furthermore, it appears that the government is contemplating using the social media bill to silence and punish its critics. Section 28 of the bill discusses the concept of “metered punishment.”

Section 28(2) of the bill specifies that “any offender who commits an offense more than once under this Act will receive double the penalty for each subsequent offense.” This means that the punishment will compound and escalate with each transgression of law. The bill appears strange. This is why many people have questioned the purpose of its construction. The punishment provisions are incredibly strange.

Is freedom of expression truly free?

In Nov 2024, freedom of expression on social media and the right to talk without fear of repercussions from the state became even more apparent. The event involving Ratan Karki, a Nepali student in Japan, demonstrated this even more clearly. Karki shared a contentious video on TikTok.  Although he made the video for fun, it might readily be believed that it was directed at the Prime Minister. Nonetheless, it was interpreted as a threat. 

Despite the fact that the video was intended to be a joke, officials are believed to have taken quick legal action. The fact that the state has issued an arrest warrant through Interpol in response has sparked interest. This demonstrates that even lighthearted disagreements can entail major risks. Similarly, Mohammed Zubair, a journalist and co-founder of Alt News, was arrested in India, highlighting the dangers that online activists and journalists confront. He was arrested for tweeting a criticism of the government and charged with “hate speech.” He had simply revealed misinformation. 

Nonetheless, he faced legal consequences. His detention and following legal battle have underlined the risks of criticizing the government under one’s true identity. It emphasizes the importance of using pseudonyms to defend one’s freedom of expression.

Is the role of government to ensure security or to stifle dissent?

The Social Media Bill is intended to protect users from cyberbullying and bogus news. However, it may accidentally silence the views of activists, marginalized groups, and people who use pseudonyms or anonymous IDs for personal security.  The bill’s broad and imprecise language, which might be used as a weapon against people who oppose the government, threatens silencing already vulnerable groups. This bill could make things much more dangerous for people who are already subjected to prejudice, abuse, and violence. It could also be used as a weapon by the government to crush dissent in the name of national security and integrity. 

Instead of providing a secure and open digital environment, such a legal system may exacerbate power disparities, pushing people from violent areas to keep silent or fight underground. While the government’s concern in combating misinformation is understandable, the extent of the measure raises serious concerns. That is, “Who is the government afraid of introducing this bill?”

If the bill is intended to safeguard citizens from dangerous content, why does it target those who use pseudonyms or false identities, particularly activists fighting for underprivileged communities?

Conclusion, in the digital age, where personal and collective identities are rapidly being formed online, the right to anonymity is critical for individual privacy and security. Nepal must acknowledge the value of this right and keep digital spaces accessible, inclusive, and free of surveillance and censorship. We must prioritize protecting the voices of the most vulnerable, those who use pseudonyms to express their opinions, campaign for change, and fight for their rights.