Submit your Article

The ongoing debate surrounding Nepal’s Civil Service Bill raises concerns about the effectiveness of bureaucratic reforms and their potential to improve public service delivery. While the bill is a step toward modernizing the Civil Service Act, many argue that it fails to address the core issues plaguing the bureaucracy, including inefficiency, lack of motivation, and poor service delivery at the local level. The real question is whether the bill will bring about meaningful change or simply become another bureaucratic hurdle.

A decade has passed since the promulgation of the Constitution, yet the Federal Civil Service Act, has not been passed. The lack of this foundational law has contributed significantly to the problems at the local level. For example, while municipalities are designed to be self-governing entities, they face severe staffing shortages and inefficient resource management. The education branches of municipalities, such as those with 15 schools, are staffed with just four positions, including a deputy secretary, while rural municipalities with over 80 schools face similar issues. These staffing arrangements are meant to be a solution but have instead become a significant source of dysfunction.

Moreover, senior employees are often posted under junior subordinates, violating principles of natural justice and further exacerbating internal tensions. The mechanical process of adjusting staff has created more problems than it has solved, and currently, over 300 municipalities are struggling with administrative failures, which have become a chronic issue in the federal system.

The root causes of bureaucratic inefficiency are complex and multifaceted. Are employees demotivated because they lack a working environment conducive to productivity? Is it because they don’t have clear career development paths or feel marginalized in decision-making processes? These questions must be addressed before any meaningful reform can take place.Without a proper working mechanism and clear standards for promotion, transfer, and career development, employees often lack the motivation to perform at their best. Additionally, the public service system in Nepal remains highly politicized, with leaders often selecting personnel based on political loyalty rather than merit or competence. This system leads to inefficiencies, as unqualified individuals are placed in key positions, affecting the overall functioning of government bodies.

The current Civil Service Bill fails to tackle these deep-rooted issues. While it introduces provisions regarding the appointment of administrative heads in municipalities, the role of the provincial secretary, open competition quotas, and retirement age, these measures do little to address the fundamental problems within the bureaucracy. By focusing on these surface-level changes, the bill misses the opportunity to bring about real structural reform.

Currently, many employees in Nepal’s civil service are trapped in a system that does not reward merit or effort. Career progression is often determined by political considerations rather than performance, leading to widespread dissatisfaction. Moreover, the lack of effective leadership and clear communication further contributes to poor morale within the bureaucracy.

A cultural shift is needed within the civil service, one that prioritizes professionalism, accountability, and public service over political loyalty. This can only be achieved through comprehensive reform that goes beyond changes in the law and addresses the underlying values and systems that govern bureaucratic behavior.

The Civil Service Bill, as it stands, fails to address the core issues within Nepal’s bureaucracy. To improve public service delivery, governance, and development, a more comprehensive and thoughtful approach to reform is needed. The bill must go beyond surface-level changes and focus on creating a civil service that is motivated, accountable, and capable of meeting the needs of the people.

Ultimately, the key to improving bureaucratic performance lies in addressing the root causes of inefficiency, such as political interference, lack of motivation, and ineffective career development systems. If these issues are not tackled head-on, any new law or bill will simply perpetuate the existing problems rather than solve them. 

Nepal’s political evolution, from its unification in 1768 to the establishment of a federal democratic republic in May 2008, has been a tumultuous journey marked by significant milestones and setbacks. This transformation has been shaped by a complex interplay of historical, socio-political, economic, and geopolitical factors. As Nepal stands at the edge of change, it faces a dynamic landscape—some forces pushing it toward progress, while others present formidable obstacles. The country’s political environment remains volatile, uncertain, and ambiguous, with the resurgence of pro-monarchy sentiments adding a new layer of complexity to its democratic experiment.

Resurgence of monarchy

Former King Gyanendra Shah, who abdicated his throne in 2008 to facilitate Nepal’s transition to a secular federal republic, has re-emerged as a focal point in the nation’s political discourse. His recent activities—returning to Kathmandu after spending two months in Nepalganj and Pokhara, and consulting with Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath in Lucknow—have sparked widespread speculation about the possible restoration of the monarchy. Adityanath, a vocal advocate for a Hindu Kingdom in Nepal, has further fueled these discussions. Meanwhile, regional powers like China and India, as well as global democratic forces, are closely monitoring the situation.

The former king’s appeal to the people to rise for the nation has resonated with some segments of society, creating fertile ground for a renewed debate about Nepal’s political future. His message emphasizes national unity, credible democracy, and a renewed sense of identity—elements that are crucial for Nepal’s strategic stability. However, the dysfunctional democracy, characterized by poor governance, corruption, and self-interest, remains a significant obstacle to achieving these goals.

Polarization and elusive stability

Nepal’s democracy is currently caught between two opposing forces: pro-monarchist electorates advocating for the return of the kingdom and republican forces, which have been marred by allegations of inefficiency and corruption. This polarization has left Nepali society deeply divided. While the people yearn for strategic stability, questions linger: Is Nepal ready for change, or is it still awaiting cues from external powers like Beijing, Delhi, or Washington? The current political system, plagued by poor governance and a lack of meritocracy, has eroded national trustworthiness. The intertwined issues of political, economic, and security affairs demand collective solutions, yet time is running out.

The Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP), which holds 14 seats in the 275-member House of Representatives, has been vocal in its support for the monarchy. Alongside the Rastriya Prajatantra Party Nepal (RPPN) and businessman turned activist Durga Prasai, the RPP has actively participated in rallies demanding the restoration of the monarchy and the abolition of the federal republican system. Slogans like “We want our King back” and “The King and the country are dearer than our life” have become rallying cries for pro-monarchy supporters.

Republican forces on the defensive

The resurgence of royalist sentiment has alarmed republican forces, who view it as a threat to the federal democratic system. Leaders from the three major parties—former Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba of the Nepali Congress (NC), Prime Minister KP Oli of the CPN (UML), and former Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal of the CPN (Maoist Center)—have dismissed the pro-monarchy movement as insignificant. However, their own unpopularity, stemming from allegations of institutional corruption, has weakened their stance.

Deuba downplayed the recent pro-monarchy rally in Kathmandu as a “regular event,” while Oli emphasized the need to focus on democratic and constitutional activities. Dahal, on the other hand, criticized both the pro-monarchy forces and the ruling alliance, blaming the government for failing to address public frustration. The Samajbadi Morcha (Socialist Front), a coalition of leftist parties formed on June 19, 2023, is preparing to hold a protest rally on March 28 to defend republican values. Meanwhile, Madhav Kumar Nepal, chairperson of the Unified Socialist Party, has blamed Prime Minister Oli for the resurgence of “reactionary elements” and called for a two-month-long protest to address the country’s political and social issues.

Historical context

To fully understand Nepal’s current political landscape, it is essential to consider its historical context. The Treaty of Sugauli, signed in 1815, reshaped Nepal’s borders and relations with the British Empire, marking the beginning of a long period of external influence and internal struggle. The Rana regime (1846–1951), characterized by hereditary authoritarian rule, further entrenched feudalism and autocracy. The dawn of democracy in 1951, marked by the Treaty of Peace and Friendship with India, laid the foundation for bilateral relations but also sowed the seeds of dependency.

The 1990 People’s Movement (Jana-Andolan) reignited democratic aspirations, but the triangular conflict between monarchist forces, democrats, and Maoists complicated the transition. The 12-point agreement in Delhi in 2005, which brought Maoists into the democratic framework, was a turning point. However, the transition to a federal democratic republic introduced new complexities, including unaccountable leadership and governance challenges.

Fragmentation and governance challenges

Nepal’s political landscape remains fragmented, with multiple parties representing regional, ethnic, and ideological interests. This fragmentation has led to unstable coalition governments and frequent changes in leadership—13 prime ministers in 16 years. The lack of policy continuity and institutional development has further undermined governance. The pro-monarchy movement, while gaining traction, faces internal divisions. RPP Chair Rajendra Lingden has distanced his party from Navaraj Subedi’s People’s Movement Committee, despite senior RPP members joining the mobilization effort. The former king’s attempt to unify pro-monarchy forces under Subedi’s leadership reflects a last-ditch effort to gauge public support for a royal comeback. However, the movement’s success remains uncertain.

The role of civil society and grassroots movements

Civil society, activists, and grassroots movements play a crucial role in driving political transformation. By advocating for transparency, accountability, and civic engagement, they can help bridge the gap between the people and the political establishment. Initiatives aimed at promoting democratic governance, human rights, and social justice are vital for holding the political elite accountable and fostering a culture of active citizenship.

The way forward

Nepal stands at a critical crossroads. The current political system, characterized by corruption, inefficiency, and fragmentation, has failed to deliver good governance. The people’s frustration with the status quo has created an opening for alternative political discourses, including the restoration of the monarchy. However, the success of any political transformation depends on addressing the root causes of instability: poor governance, institutional corruption, and socio-economic disparities.

Reforming the constitution to create a more functional democracy is essential. This includes ensuring greater accountability, transparency, and representation for all citizens. Geopolitical integration can also play a role in supporting Nepal’s democratic aspirations, but it must be approached with caution to avoid external interference.

Nepal’s political transformation is a delicate balancing act. The country must navigate its historical legacies, socio-economic challenges, and diverse aspirations while fostering dialogue and cooperation among stakeholders. The success of this transformation hinges on the ability of political leaders to prioritize democracy, justice, and development over self-interest and geopolitical maneuvering.

As Nepal moves forward, it must strive to unite its diverse voices and create an inclusive political framework. The current system, with its flaws and failures, cannot sustain the nation’s aspirations. Whether through constitutional reform, a national unity government, or a renewed commitment to democratic values, Nepal must seize this moment to redefine its future. The ball is in the court of its political leaders, and the choices they make will determine whether Nepal emerges as a resilient, inclusive nation or remains trapped in a cycle of instability.

The author, a retired Major General of the Nepali Army, is a strategic analyst

Bamboozled by hundreds of optimisms, an era of ragtag politics is in order to vanish. The movie ‘Election’ released in 1999 carries the central theme of the colliding democratic process by exercising excess power. Director Alexander Payne collocates the story in between the complexities and challenges of democracy. Zest democracy seems more debilitating in terms of political juxtapose. The manipulation of democracy in the movie appears to be escalating beyond order being more fragile. Such a graph of muddled outlay in Nepal is measured now-a-days. 

Streamlining the central theme of multiparty democracy appears null, nowadays.  The peripheral eco-political sphere seems harsher as Hari Roka depicts in his volume Baikalpik Arthtantra, released some months ago, where development-based political agendas of classical parties remain frozen in time. A phenomenon of shamelessness exists on the surface as noticeable. Celerity over developmental amalgamation is a tongue-tipped word, but remains silent on execution. Diplomatic tendency swings to and fro scathing in the void of clear and sublime national policy. Veneration upon so-called leaders are nullified by the citizens, but still are chalking out impunity.

Youth on portrayal 

Youth political campaigners are in the basement and are paved toward the vehement and drastic move. A move in a sense that can touch the key aspiration and demand of the community as a whole. Trait theory of leadership implies that leaders are born, not made. Does this theoretical depiction lay any understanding in between the lines of Nepali uncanny politics? Assumptions over the trait theory are merely a solo manipulation, but regardless the Nepali periphery voids enhanced youth accelerating the astir Nepal polity. The cooperative scandal as faced by Rabi Lamichhane can be a prohibiting factor for Nepali youths to start a political career nowadays. 

Camila Vallejo, a female Chilean revolutionist was in peak in the period of 2011 carrying the agenda of socio-educational agendas leading to greater swing of academic institutions. It encompasses a holistic range of educational reformation, building the public funding procedure in education, eco-social reformation, greater scale investment in education that leads to comprehensive improvement over socio-political status. She is from the Communist Party of Chile and currently serves as a minister of the general secretariat of government. Her position is successful till date because of increased public funding on education, provision of free education at all levels and hiked socio-economic status. 

Ben Kirshner, professor of learning science and human development at University of Colorado Boulder in his well-known book Youth Activism in an Era of Education Inequality quest ahead for the mechanisms of youth led educational and political reformation through community involvement. Here Kirshner provides an insightful rapture of clique youth as catalyst for transformation, tendency of academic inequality paved by youths, core synergistic value and more. Here she too provides an event of Denver where youths make meaningful discourses from social media, community forums, pressure groups to enhance the political landscape ultimately leads to panacea. After a long time, this sort of web based political performance seems mushrooming in Nepal achieving noticeable results in the past elections and manifested that will affect the realpolitik in the foreseeable future. The rise of Rastriya Swatantra Party, Balen including other free fledged winner candidates are the example of this web based publicity.

Nepali parameters

Convictions over the economic reformation, distrainment on current federal system, homage to the erstwhile monarch, all the backlash are accordingly entangled within the belief of youth leaders. Disoriented Nepali citizens are surpassingly gazing at the central theme of a youth-based polity, as a parched crow expressing the sign of Are Youngish Still to Accelerate! Can youth halt this sleaze and impunity? Youth having a higher audacity and synergy may have a chance to groom. At the same time, let’s hope populist and futile can go in vain. This kind of gentle synchronization can have a chance of ascending reformation and purification over the holistic ruling system as in Mexico, the Philippines and Russia. 

None of the parameters assume that Nepali politics is dignity-based. Inner-party polarization, fragile government policy, highly volatile governments, low geo-political tensions, low diplomatic outreach, lack of trust are the preliminary tendencies that shove the state in a vicious loop of impunity. Public discontent toward this ruling system commences to proliferate in the level, i.e. monarch wave. If a limelight of youth like Balen, Rabi Lamichhane, Gagan Thapa, Yogesh Bhattarai and Ram Kumari Jhakri portray this agenda, it can carry a significant value and public sentiment starts to rise on them. So the streamliners need to address this phenomenon through a democratic public process. By this, the political graph can be normalized and boomed later.  Thus, a clear line of dignity and rationality needs to be drawn well. 

Enjoining the governing bodies yields neither result nor succession.  The impending leaders are being nurtured from the limited schools of thoughts. It's our prime option to catch their aspiration for the country to develop as a think tank but seems more sapped nowadays.  In full democratic procedure, not only a win-win policy exists. Nonetheless, we are appeasing our gen G generation as a yes-man only. It must be thought of well.

Aw-shucks scenario

Gaps over idealistic political philosophy are not so vicious as depicted, but an inner willingness and eagerness is vital for so. Egalitarian schools are free as a bird to build ideas over rationality. Rapid and soothing ideation can be factors for transformation in the global political arena. We tend to earn outcomes in no time. Does gaining a result in a short span bring a sustained idea and philosophy? Ideological streamliners put forth some tested ideas via brainstorming and figure out a solid political manifesto, which tends to be more behavioral and headline-worthy.

For a system to function, recurrent checks and balances are obligatory. When regulatory bodies intervene, this type of graphs delineate over time, something that needs to be reformed by the system as well. So a strong and meaningful systematic approach can be a philosopher’s stone for further surge.

The author is lecturer at Tribhuvan University, Sindhuli Multiple Campus

President Vladimir Putin has rejected an immediate and full ceasefire in Ukraine, agreeing only to halt attacks on energy infrastructure, following a call with US President Donald Trump, BBC reported.

The Russian leader declined to sign up to the comprehensive month-long ceasefire that Trump's team recently worked out with Ukrainians in Saudi Arabia.

He said a comprehensive truce could only work if foreign military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine came to an end. Ukraine's European allies have previously rejected such conditions. 

US talks on Ukraine are due to continue on Sunday in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, the US envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, said.

In the grinding three-year war, Russia has recently been taking back territory in its Kursk region that was occupied by a Ukrainian incursion six months ago. 

The results of Tuesday's Trump-Putin call amount to a retreat in the US position from where it stood a week ago, although the two leaders did agree that further peace talks would take place immediately in the Middle East.

When a US delegation met Ukrainian counterparts in Jeddah last Tuesday, they convinced Kyiv to agree to their proposal for an "immediate" 30-day ceasefire, across land, air and sea.

President Volodymyr Zelensky, who arrived in Helsinki, Finland, for an official visit on Tuesday shortly after Trump and Putin's call ended, said Ukraine was open to the idea of a truce covering energy infrastructure, but wanted more details first.

He later accused Putin of rejecting a ceasefire following a barrage of Russian drone attacks. 

Among the places targeted was a hospital in Sumy, and power supplies in Slovyansk, said Ukraine's leader.

"Unfortunately, there have been hits, specifically on civilian infrastructure," Zelensky said on X. "Today, Putin effectively rejected the proposal for a full ceasefire."

Trump posted earlier on social media that his call with the Russian leader was "very good and productive" and that "many elements of a Contract for Peace were discussed".

"We agreed to an immediate Ceasefire on all Energy and Infrastructure, with an understanding that we will be working quickly to have a Complete Ceasefire and, ultimately, an END to this very horrible War between Russia and Ukraine," the US president said on Truth Social, according to BBC.

About 80% of Ukraine's energy infrastructure has been destroyed by Russian bombs, Zelensky said last September.

Kyiv has in turn conducted drone and missile strikes deep into Russian territory, on oil and gas facilities.

Following last week's talks in Jeddah, Secretary of State Marco Rubio had said "the ball" was in Russia's court, after the Ukrainians accepted Washington's proposal for a full ceasefire.

But the White House's statement following the Trump-Putin call on Tuesday made no reference to that agreement with Kyiv.

It instead said the two leaders agreed that "the movement to peace will begin with an energy and infrastructure ceasefire", followed by negotiations over a "maritime ceasefire in the Black Sea, full ceasefire and permanent peace".

But the Kremlin's own statement on the call noted what it said were a "series of significant issues" around enforcing any agreement with Kyiv. And it said the end of foreign support and intelligence for Ukraine was a "key condition" for Russia.

Trump and Putin agreed to immediate technical-level talks towards a longer-term settlement, which the Kremlin said must be "complex, stable and long-term in nature".

But it's unclear if this means further negotiations between the US and Russia, or bilateral talks between Russia and Ukraine.

The Kremlin also said Trump supported Putin's idea of holding ice hockey matches between professional US and Russian players.

Russia was frozen out of ice hockey events overseas after the country invaded Ukraine in 2022.

Kyiv will probably see the outcome of Tuesday's much-anticipated phone call as Putin playing for time, while he adds crippling conditions on any settlement.

Putin has previously insisted Russia should keep control of Ukrainian territory it has seized and has called for Western sanctions to be eased as part of any eventual peace settlement.

The Russian leader has already tasted Trump's readiness to cut off US support to Ukraine, and is trying to get him to repeat it - while tossing the ball back to Kyiv.

Earlier this month the US temporarily suspended military and intelligence aid to Ukraine after Trump and Zelensky had an altercation in the Oval Office, BBC reported.

Trump and his Vice-President JD Vance dressed down Zelensky in front of the world's media, accusing him of being ungrateful for American support.

Speaking at a news conference on Tuesday in Berlin with French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said the limited ceasefire plan was an important first step, but he again called for a complete ceasefire.

Meanwhile, British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer spoke to Zelensky after the Trump-Putin call and "reiterated [the] UK's unwavering support", a Downing Street spokeswoman said.