Nepal’s transformation over the past three decades has been marked by the transition from a constitutional monarchy to a secular federal republic.
However, despite constitutional progress and the institutionalization of democratic norms, the people and the country continue to face persistent governance challenges and a loss of national credibility.
Chief among them are the structuring of the state and the politicization of state institutions, compounded by systemic corruption. These interlinked trends have severely eroded public trust, hindered service delivery, and stunted the state’s ability to respond to national priorities—from infrastructure development to social justice and national security.
Politicization of Institutions: A Structural Malady
The politicization of government institutions is not a new phenomenon, but its intensification in recent years has raised serious concerns about institutional independence and functional integrity.
Politicization occurs when appointments, promotions, or decisions within state bodies (e.g., bureaucracy, judiciary, election commissions, anti-corruption agencies) are driven by political loyalty rather than merit, law, or professionalism.
This undermines: one, independent oversight; two, fair service delivery; three, rule-based decision-making; and lastly, democratic accountability.
Two, public services were digitized to minimize discretion and political interference. In addition, independent regulatory commissions and transparent procurement systems were created.
Such conditions have led to systemic corruption, clientelism, and governance paralysis—a concern many developing democracies face, including Nepal.
Party Capture of Bureaucracy and Agencies
Political parties across the spectrum have sought to embed their influence within the civil service, judiciary, police, anti-corruption bodies, and public enterprises. Appointments based on party allegiance rather than merit have undermined the professionalism of the bureaucracy.
Politicization of Constitutional Bodies
Key constitutional institutions such as the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA), the Public Service Commission, and the National Human Rights Commission have not been immune to political maneuvering.
Local Governance Undermined
Following federal restructuring, local governments were meant to enhance accountability and public participation. However, many local units have become extensions of political parties, often operating without transparency or inclusive representation, undermined by party control, especially in recruitment, budgeting, and resource allocation.
Institutional Corruption: Normalizing a Culture of Impunity
Corruption in Nepal has evolved from isolated incidents to a deeply embedded culture, enabled by weak oversight and political protection in all tools and instruments.
Collusion between Political and Business Elites
State contracts, especially in infrastructure and procurement, are often awarded through networks of political-business collusion.
Weak Accountability and Oversight Mechanisms
Anti-corruption mechanisms are often neutered by selective enforcement. While low-ranking officials may be investigated or punished, high-profile political figures are rarely held accountable.
Judicial Complicity and Erosion of Rule of Law
Allegations of judicial bias, case manipulation, and patronage have further eroded institutional checks and balances.
Consequences: The Inefficiency Spiral in Governance
The convergence of politicization and corruption creates a toxic governance environment, where state performance is undermined and public trust deteriorates.
- Service Delivery Breakdown
When bureaucrats are beholden to political patrons, service delivery becomes erratic, biased, or transactional.
- Erosion of Public Trust
Public confidence in state institutions is at a historic low.
- Investment and Development Paralysis
Corruption and red tape deter both domestic and foreign investors.
- Strategic Vulnerability
The inability to govern effectively creates space for external actors to exert undue influence.
Practiced Mechanisms
Nation-states have engaged systems to address politicization. One is Indonesia’s bureaucratic reform program after the fall of Suharto in 1998. In response to the deeply entrenched politicization, the National Civil Service Agency (BKN) was reformed to ensure merit-based recruitment and performance evaluations.
Second, a Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) was set up as an independent constitutional body with authority to prosecute high-level corruption.
Another important factor is a long tradition of rule-based governance and non-politicized public institutions, which leads to high levels of institutional trust.
Lastly, decentralization laws (2001) transferred administrative and fiscal powers to local governments with safeguards against local elite capture.
Second is Georgia’s post-Rose Revolution reforms. Georgia in the early 2000s had a highly corrupt and politicized system. The new government under President Mikheil Saakashvili launched radical reforms: dismissed the entire police force and rebuilt it from scratch with new recruitment based on merit.
Two, public services were digitized to minimize discretion and political interference. In addition, independent regulatory commissions and transparent procurement systems were created.
Third is South Korea’s independent constitutional bodies. South Korea’s democratization in the 1980s and 1990s led to several institutional safeguards:
- Civil service reforms established a competitive, neutral bureaucracy protected from political interference.
- Bodies like the Board of Audit and Inspection (BAI) and the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission (ACRC) operate independently from the executive.
- Judicial independence was strengthened through secure appointments and tenure.
Fourth is Botswana’s professional civil service and anti-corruption framework, which is also often cited as a model in Africa. It maintains a professional and meritocratic civil service with clear promotion criteria.
The Ombudsman and Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crime (DCEC) are legally independent. Political interference is legally restricted in public appointments.
Fifth is Chile’s civil service modernization. Post-dictatorship governments faced the challenge of restoring democratic governance. The government established the High Public Management System to depoliticize the recruitment of senior civil servants.
Nepal’s governance crisis is not merely a technical failure—it is a political and moral failure rooted in the deliberate corrosion of institutions by power-seeking actors.
They held competitive examinations, and public calls replaced patronage-based hiring. Finally, an Electoral Tribunal and Comptroller General operate independently.
Common Mechanisms Used Globally
Every nation has its own national challenges and responses, but common mechanisms could be adopted by Nepal to create effective systems.
Legal and institutional frameworks are reinforced through public service laws, anti-corruption agencies, and checks on executive power.
There is always a need for political will, coupled with institutional overhaul and digital transparency to curtail politicization. The requirement of strong, well-funded, and autonomous institutions serves as a buffer against political interference. Another important factor is a long tradition of rule-based governance and non-politicized public institutions, which leads to high levels of institutional trust.
Lastly, transparency and institutionalized recruitment reduce political manipulation.
The measures to an efficient system are:
Merit-Based Civil Service Laws that uphold independent civil service commissions, public recruitment and examinations, and fixed terms for senior bureaucrats.
Independent Oversight Bodies with autonomous anti-corruption commissions, Auditor Generals, Election Commissions, and Human Rights Commissions with secure appointments and reporting to Parliament.
Decentralization with Safeguards empowering local governments while insulating them from central political capture, and fiscal decentralization with performance-based transfers.
Digital Governance Tools such as e-procurement, digital registries, and open data platforms to reduce political gatekeeping.
Judicial Independence with clear criteria and independent commissions for judicial appointments, as well as security of tenure and adequate funding.
Recommendations: Towards Institutional Integrity and Efficiency
Nepal can draw from the above examples to: reform the Public Service Commission with external experts and greater transparency; create an independent appointments board for constitutional bodies; legislate and enforce tenure protection and performance audits for bureaucrats and local officials; and encourage digitalization of service delivery and public financial management to curb discretion.
But reversing the trend of politicized and corrupt governance requires both political will and institutional reform.
Meritocratic Reforms and Depoliticization
Enforce merit-based recruitment and performance evaluation in the civil service.
Strengthen Anti-Corruption Architecture
Enhance the operational independence and capacity of the CIAA.
Judicial Reforms and Rule of Law
Introduce accountability frameworks for judges.
Civic Education and Digital Transparency
Promote public watchdog programs and civic education to rebuild trust.
Conclusion
Nepal’s governance crisis is not merely a technical failure—it is a political and moral failure rooted in the deliberate corrosion of institutions by power-seeking actors.
Unless politicization and corruption are confronted as existential threats to the state’s functionality, no amount of federalism, democracy, or donor aid will produce sustainable progress.
The path forward lies in reclaiming institutions for the public good and investing in integrity as a strategic national asset.
Countries that have depoliticized governance and protected institutional autonomy have done so through legal safeguards, institutional independence, digital innovation, and strong public accountability mechanisms.
For Nepal, emulating these models requires not just structural reform but also political will and civic-military engagement.
Maj Gen Binoj Basnyat (Retd) from the Nepali Army is a strategic affairs analyst. He writes on South Asian geopolitics, diplomacy, and regional security. Twitter: @BinojBasnyat
Comment