Nepal is facing a growing crisis of trust in government. Recent protests by teachers demanding reform in education law and doctors calling for enforcement of prior agreements have disrupted essential services. High-profile resignations—including the Education Minister, state minister and the Vice Chancellor of Tribhuvan University—reflect a political culture marred by interference and disillusionment. Statements by former Governor Vijayanath Bhattarai, who criticized the influence of middlemen in public appointments, underline a widening gap between citizens and institutions.
This disillusionment is not exclusive to Nepal. As Chris Eccles explains in his essay Restoring Trust in Government, public confidence in democratic institutions has declined across many countries over the past several decades. His insights are especially timely for Nepal as it navigates its own democratic transition and seeks to restore public legitimacy.
Eccles begins by highlighting how trust in government has eroded steadily since the 1960s, citing surveys in countries like the United States and New Zealand. This decline cannot be attributed to isolated events or leadership failures. It reflects a deeper, structural shift in how citizens perceive and interact with democratic institutions.
In Nepal, trust remains low despite constitutional reforms and federal restructuring. Political institutions are often viewed as self-serving and unresponsive. Eccles argues that declining trust is not just a result of poor performance but of a changing political culture where citizens demand more than material benefits—they seek fairness, dignity, and voice.
For decades, governments believed that delivering roads, schools, and jobs would be enough to earn public support. Eccles refers to this belief as “performance legitimacy.” However, his research shows that service delivery alone is no longer sufficient to maintain trust. Citizens increasingly judge governments by how decisions are made, who is included, and whether processes are fair.
In Nepal, development initiatives often fail to improve legitimacy when implemented without transparency or local participation. Even when services are delivered, communities may feel excluded or manipulated. Eccles’ insight is clear: trust is not just about output, but about justice and accountability.
Eccles draws on Ronald Inglehart’s theory of social modernization to explain how rising education and global exposure have changed citizen behavior. As societies modernize, people expect governments to respect their rights, engage in dialogue, and share decision-making. They no longer accept top-down rules without explanation or consultation.
Nepal is experiencing this shift. Civic protests, youth-led campaigns, and digital activism reflect a political environment where citizens—especially young people—demand transparency, equality, and ethical conduct. Trust must now be earned through relationships and engagement, not merely promised in speeches.
A defining feature of Eccles’ argument is the idea of a new civic culture. Citizens want more than services—they want institutions to act with honesty, competence, and respect. Trust today is not an automatic result of governance; it is a public value that must be cultivated.
Nepal’s participatory frameworks provide an opportunity to build this culture. Local governments hold public hearings and consultations, but these often fail to influence actual decisions. To restore credibility, these mechanisms must go beyond ritual and become meaningful platforms for collaboration.
Eccles notes that repeated political scandals deepen public cynicism. While the media plays a vital role in uncovering wrongdoing, constant negativity without resolution can damage morale and weaken democratic engagement. In Nepal, headlines about corruption, impunity, and political manipulation are common, yet few are followed by accountability.
Citizens begin to believe that change is impossible. Eccles calls for a shift in narrative—one that includes not only critique but also examples of reform, ethical leadership, and citizen participation that rebuild hope and confidence.
Eccles presents several reforms introduced in New South Wales, including a Public Service Commission, a Customer Service Commissioner, and Infrastructure NSW. These bodies aimed to strengthen professionalism, prioritize public needs, and insulate planning from political interference.
Nepal can adopt similar reforms. Independent commissions, long-term planning authorities, and citizen feedback mechanisms can improve integrity and transparency. These changes must be supported by a public service culture that values competence and service over patronage.
To guide institutional behavior, Eccles introduces the ITARI framework: Integrity, Transparency, Accountability, Responsiveness, and Inclusiveness. Each principle addresses a key dimension of democratic trust.
Nepal’s constitution and laws already reference these values, but implementation is inconsistent. Merit is often compromised by political interests. Public data is not always accessible. Marginalized communities are still underrepresented in key decisions. Restoring trust means turning these values from ideals into lived practice at every level of governance.
Eccles outlines an “engagement continuum” with five levels: networking, coordination, cooperation, collaboration, and partnering. Many governments promise partnership but deliver only limited consultation. This gap between promise and practice damages trust.
Nepal’s experience reflects this challenge. Community members may be invited to meetings, but decisions often remain top-down. True engagement requires that citizens help define problems, shape solutions, and share responsibility for implementation. Community forestry and school management models offer practical examples of deeper participation already at work in Nepal.
Eccles critiques overly strict administrative rules—called probity frameworks—that were meant to prevent corruption but often block innovation. In many systems, civil servants become afraid to take initiative, slowing progress and avoiding responsibility.
This is a serious issue in Nepal. Delays and inaction are often driven by fear of audits or political retribution. Eccles proposes a fit-for-purpose approach, where rules are tailored to the size and risk of each project. Such flexibility can encourage problem-solving while maintaining integrity.
A vital solution offered by Eccles is co-production. This means that the government does not act alone but works with citizens to design and deliver public services. Trust grows when people see themselves as contributors, not just recipients.
Nepal has strong traditions of cooperative action, from community-managed forests to disaster response. These approaches show that when citizens are trusted, they help solve complex problems. Expanding co-production can make governance more inclusive and more effective.
Eccles ends his essay with a powerful revision of a common phrase: instead of saying, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help,” public servants should say, “I’m from the government and I need—and want—your help.” This simple change reflects a deeper transformation—one that centers humility, partnership, and mutual respect.
In Nepal, this message is more urgent than ever. Trust cannot be rebuilt with slogans or plans alone. It requires institutional courage, ethical leadership, and daily practices that honor the voice and dignity of every citizen.
