Introduction

Nepal, a landlocked country nestled between China and India, has undergone significant political transformations over the last century. From being an absolute monarchy to becoming a federal democratic republic, Nepal's political journey is a rich tapestry of revolutions, civil movements, constitutional changes, and grassroots activism. The modern political movements in Nepal have been marked by popular uprisings, armed struggle, and persistent demands for democracy, inclusiveness, and good governance.

In the early 20th century, Nepal was under the autocratic rule of the Rana regime, which centralized power within a hereditary oligarchy and isolated the country from global political and technological progress. The dissatisfaction with feudal oppression and lack of civil liberties led to the first organized resistance movements, culminating in the 1951 revolution that overthrew the Rana regime and restored the monarchy under a constitutional framework. However, the democratic dream was short-lived, as King Mahendra's royal coup in 1960 replaced the multiparty system with a party-less Panchayat regime, once again silencing political dissent.

It was only with the 1990 People's Movement (Jana Andolan I), led by a broad coalition of political parties and civil society, that Nepal saw the revival of democratic values. This movement re-established a constitutional monarchy with a multiparty democracy, raising public hopes for transparent governance, rule of law, and socio-economic progress. Unfortunately, recurring political instability and systemic exclusion of marginalized communities left many aspirations unfulfilled, paving the way for a decade-long Maoist insurgency starting in 1996. The civil war highlighted deep-rooted inequalities and called for a complete overhaul of Nepal's socio-political structure.

The 2006 People's Movement (Jana Andolan II) became a turning point in Nepali history. A mass uprising involving political parties, civil society, and rebel Maoists led to the abolition of the monarchy and the declaration of Nepal as a federal democratic republic in 2008. Since then, Nepal has seen the drafting and promulgation of a new constitution in 2015, the first to be created by an elected Constituent Assembly, laying the groundwork for inclusive governance and decentralization of power through a federal system.

Despite these landmark achievements, Nepal's democratic development remains a work in progress. Frequent political changes, weak institutional frameworks, corruption, and ongoing ethnic and regional grievances continue to challenge the stability and effectiveness of democratic governance. Yet, the resilience of the Nepali people, the rise of new political forces, and growing civic engagement—especially among the youth—signal a persistent desire to strengthen democracy and build a just, equitable, and inclusive nation.

Historical Background

To understand the modern political movements of Nepal, it is essential to briefly trace the country's pre-democratic era, which was dominated by absolute monarchy and aristocratic rule. For more than two centuries, Nepal was governed by monarchs, beginning with the unification of the country under King Prithvi Narayan Shah in 1768, who laid the foundation of the Shah dynasty. His military campaigns brought together numerous small principalities into a single, centralized kingdom. Although he envisioned a strong and self-reliant Nepal, political power gradually became concentrated in the royal palace, limiting public participation and institutional governance.

By the mid-19th century, real authority had shifted away from the monarchy to a hereditary line of Prime Ministers from the Rana family. The Rana regime, established by Jung Bahadur Rana in 1846 after the Kot Massacre, effectively turned the Shah monarch into a ceremonial figure. For over a century (1846–1951), Nepal was under autocratic Rana rule, which was characterized by a rigid feudal system, lack of civil liberties, censorship of the press, and minimal development. Education was discouraged for the masses to prevent political awakening, and foreign relations were strictly controlled.

During this period, the general public had no voice in governance, and dissent was brutally suppressed. However, the early 20th century saw the emergence of political awareness among educated Nepalis, many of whom had been exposed to democratic ideas in India and abroad. Revolutionary groups such as the Nepal Praja Parishad began to form in the 1930s, aiming to challenge the Rana autocracy. Although many early leaders were imprisoned or executed, the seeds of democracy had been sown.

The growing desire for freedom, along with the global wave of decolonization following World War II, intensified political agitation in Nepal. Exiled Nepali leaders, particularly those affiliated with the Nepali Congress, coordinated with democratic forces in India to organize a full-scale movement against the Ranas. This culminated in the 1951 democratic revolution, which marked the end of Rana rule and ushered in a new era of political transformation, setting the stage for Nepal's long and complex journey toward democracy.

I. The 1951 Democratic Revolution

The first major political turning point in modern Nepali history came with the 1951 democratic revolution, which successfully ended the 104-year-long Rana autocracy and initiated the country's journey toward democracy. This movement marked the beginning of Nepal's transition from feudal absolutism to participatory politics and modern governance.

Background and Build-up

During the Rana regime (1846–1951), the general population was deprived of fundamental rights, including freedom of speech, press, and assembly. Education was limited to the elite, and most administrative posts were monopolized by members of the Rana family. Dissatisfaction with this oppressive rule grew steadily, particularly among educated Nepalis, many of whom had studied in India and were inspired by the ongoing Indian independence movement.

In 1947, a major political party—the Nepali Congress (NC)—was formed through the merger of the Nepal National Congress and the Nepal Democratic Congress. The NC was deeply influenced by democratic ideals, nationalism, and anti-feudal sentiments. It quickly became the vanguard of the anti-Rana movement, organizing protests, publishing underground newspapers, and demanding an end to autocratic rule.

The Role of King Tribhuvan

Though nominally in power, King Tribhuvan remained under Rana supervision. However, he secretly sympathized with the democratic cause. In 1950, he made a bold move by seeking refuge in the Indian Embassy in Kathmandu and then flying to New Delhi. This symbolic act galvanized public support and delegitimized the Rana regime. In his absence, the Ranas installed King Gyanendra, a child monarch, but this was widely rejected both within Nepal and internationally.

The Armed Uprising and Indian Mediation

Simultaneously, the Nepali Congress launched an armed revolt, forming a liberation army that quickly captured key towns in eastern Nepal. The rising instability and military pressure forced the Ranas to seek a negotiated settlement.

At this critical juncture, India mediated the conflict, leading to the Delhi Compromise (1951). This tripartite agreement among the Ranas, the monarchy, and the Nepali Congress laid the groundwork for a transitional government.

Key Features of the 1951 Revolution

• The Nepali Congress emerged as a dominant political force, championing democratic reforms.
• India played a supportive role, both diplomatically and logistically.
• The Delhi Compromise formed a coalition government with equal representation from the Ranas and the democratic forces, under the formal leadership of the king.
• The revolution re-established the monarchy as a political actor, but within a constitutional framework rather than an absolute role.

Outcomes and Limitations

The revolution ended the Rana oligarchy and ushered in a new era of multiparty democracy. A temporary constitution was introduced, and plans for the election of a Constituent Assembly were envisioned.

Ultimately, in 1960, King Mahendra dismissed the elected government and dissolved Parliament, declaring that parliamentary democracy had failed—a move that would bring about the next major political chapter: the Panchayat era.

The first significant political movement in modern Nepal was the 1951 revolution, which ended the century-long Rana rule.

Key Features:

Nepali Congress (NC), a newly formed political party, led the charge alongside King Tribhuvan.

The movement was inspired by democratic ideals and supported by India.

The Delhi Compromise resulted in a power-sharing agreement between the Ranas, the monarchy, and the NC.

Outcome: The revolution ushered in a multiparty democracy under a constitutional monarchy.

However, the democratic experiment was fragile from the beginning. The country lacked strong democratic institutions, and political parties were still in their infancy. Disagreements between the monarchy and elected leaders soon emerged. Over the next decade, Nepal witnessed frequent changes in government, power struggles, and rising royal intervention, all of which undermined democratic consolidation.

II. King Mahendra's Coup and the Panchayat Era (1960–1990)

After the brief democratic experiment that began with the 1951 revolution, Nepal entered a new phase of political upheaval. Tensions between the monarchy and elected political leaders escalated throughout the 1950s, particularly under the leadership of Prime Minister B.P. Koirala of the Nepali Congress, who was committed to democratic reforms, land redistribution, and reducing monarchical powers.

In December 1960, citing political instability, corruption, and inefficiency in governance, King Mahendra staged a royal coup. He dismissed the democratically elected government, imprisoned key political leaders, and banned all political parties. In their place, he introduced a new political framework known as the party-less Panchayat system, which concentrated all state power in the monarchy and limited citizen participation to local, indirect elections under strict royal oversight.

Characteristics of the Panchayat System

1. Centralization of Power: The Panchayat system operated on a four-tiered structure—village, town, district, and national levels—with all institutions ultimately answerable to the king. The monarchy became the supreme executive, legislative, and judicial authority, and any checks on royal power were virtually non-existent.
2. Suppression of Political Pluralism: Political parties were declared illegal, and all political activity had to take place within the confines of the Panchayat framework. Any criticism of the monarchy was deemed anti-national. Political dissidents were arrested, exiled, or silenced, leading to an era of authoritarian control and political repression.
3. Promotion of Nationalism and Monarchical Loyalty: The regime aggressively promoted the ideology of "Ek Bhasa, Ek Dharm, Ek Desh" (One Language, One Religion, One Nation), which emphasized the Nepali language, Hindu religion, and absolute loyalty to the king. This excluded ethnic, linguistic, and religious minorities, sowing long-term grievances among diverse communities such as the Madhesis, Janajatis, and other marginalized groups.
4. Focus on Development without Democracy: The Panchayat era saw the rise of "guided democracy", where the monarchy implemented state-led development projects without political accountability. Foreign aid was welcomed, and infrastructure projects such as roads, hydroelectric plants, and schools were initiated. However, the absence of transparency and checks on power led to rampant corruption and inefficient administration.

Resistance and Decline

Though the Panchayat system initially brought political stability and some economic progress, it increasingly became a tool for monarchical authoritarianism. Over the decades, public dissatisfaction grew due to:

• Denial of fundamental rights and freedom of expression.
• Discrimination against ethnic minorities and women.
• Youth unrest, especially among students and intellectuals.
• The rise of a politically conscious diaspora, many of whom were living in democratic countries like India.

The 1979 student protests and increasing demand for reform forced King Birendra, Mahendra's son and successor, to call for a national referendum in 1980. The referendum offered a choice between continuing the Panchayat system with reforms or restoring multiparty democracy. Although the Panchayat system narrowly won, the result was widely seen as manipulated, and discontent persisted.

By the late 1980s, economic stagnation, rising inequality, and suppression of dissent further eroded the legitimacy of the Panchayat regime. The growing public resentment culminated in the People's Movement of 1990 (Jana Andolan I), which would finally bring an end to the Panchayat system and reintroduce multiparty democracy in Nepal.

In 1960, King Mahendra dissolved the democratic government, banned political parties, and established a party-less Panchayat system.

Characteristics of the Panchayat System:

• Centralized power under the king.
• Restricted civil liberties and suppressed political dissent.
• Focused on nationalism, monarchy, and economic development without political pluralism.

Despite initial economic progress, the system gradually faced resistance due to lack of freedom, increasing corruption, and authoritarianism.

III. The 1990 People's Movement (Jana Andolan I)

The 1990 People's Movement, commonly known as Jana Andolan I, was a historic and transformative uprising that marked the end of nearly three decades of absolute monarchical rule under the Panchayat system. It was a mass-based, peaceful pro-democracy movement that brought together political parties, students, civil society, and ordinary citizens in a collective demand for freedom, democracy, and human rights.

Causes of the Movement

Several interlinked factors led to the eruption of widespread protests against the Panchayat regime:

• Suppression of Political Rights: For nearly 30 years, political parties were banned, freedom of speech was curtailed, and citizens had no right to elect a government of their choice. Political activists were routinely jailed or exiled, and press freedom was tightly controlled.
• Economic Stagnation and Inequality: Although the regime focused on development, the benefits failed to trickle down to the masses. Widespread poverty, unemployment, and a lack of basic services—especially in rural and marginalized areas—fueled public frustration. Corruption was rampant, and the state lacked accountability.
• Global Democratic Winds: The late 1980s and early 1990s saw democratic revolutions sweep across Eastern Europe, Latin America, and parts of Asia. These global movements inspired Nepali intellectuals, youth, and political leaders to push more vigorously for democratic reform.
• Growing Opposition Unity: Political parties, particularly the Nepali Congress (NC) and leftist forces, including the United Left Front (ULF), joined hands to launch a coordinated, non-violent movement to end absolute monarchy. This unity proved critical to the success of the uprising.

The Movement Unfolds

The movement began in February 1990 and quickly spread across the country. Demonstrations, strikes, and protests erupted in urban centers like Kathmandu, Pokhara, and Biratnagar, as well as rural areas. The state's response was brutal—several demonstrators were killed, injured, or imprisoned. But rather than deterring the people, this only intensified the protests.

Within two months, the scale and intensity of the uprising had made the Panchayat regime untenable. Realizing the unsustainability of repression, King Birendra, unlike his father Mahendra, chose not to resort to violent suppression on a massive scale.

Outcomes of the 1990 People's Movement

1. Restoration of Multiparty Democracy: On April 8, 1990, King Birendra lifted the ban on political parties and agreed to form an interim government comprising members from the Nepali Congress and the United Left Front.
2. The 1990 Constitution: A new constitution was drafted and promulgated in November 1990, which transformed Nepal into a constitutional monarchy with a multiparty parliamentary system. Key features included:
   • A bicameral legislature.
   • Independent judiciary.
   • Fundamental rights for all citizens.
   • Recognition of political parties and democratic elections.
3. Rebirth of Political Institutions: General elections were held in 1991, and B.P. Koirala's vision of parliamentary democracy was finally realized, with the Nepali Congress winning the majority.

Challenges in the Post-1990 Period

Despite the democratic breakthrough, the period following 1990 was riddled with chronic political instability. Over the next decade:

• Nepal saw frequent changes in government, with dozens of prime ministers taking office in short succession.
• Factionalism, corruption, and power struggles within and among political parties eroded public trust.
• Promises of social justice, inclusion, and economic reform were largely unfulfilled, particularly for marginalized communities such as the Dalits, Madhesis, Janajatis, and women.
• The gap between democratic ideals and governance realities grew wider, creating a vacuum of discontent.

This disillusionment set the stage for the Maoist insurgency in 1996, which would fundamentally reshape Nepal's political landscape once again.

After decades of autocratic rule, the People's Movement of 1990, also known as Jana Andolan I, marked a major turning point.

Causes:

• Suppression of political rights.
• Economic stagnation.
• Influence of democratic waves sweeping across the world.

Outcome:

• Restoration of multiparty democracy.
• Promulgation of the 1990 Constitution, which established Nepal as a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system.

However, the post-1990 period was plagued by political instability, corruption, and unfulfilled promises of economic and social justice.

IV. The Maoist Insurgency (1996–2006)

One of the most turbulent and defining chapters in Nepal's modern political history was the Maoist insurgency, also known as the People's War, launched in February 1996 by the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). What began as an armed uprising in the remote hills of Rolpa and Rukum soon escalated into a nationwide civil conflict, lasting a decade and reshaping the political, social, and economic foundations of the country.

Causes and Objectives

The roots of the Maoist insurgency lay in the deep structural inequalities that had persisted despite the restoration of democracy in 1990. Although a multiparty system was in place, systemic issues such as poverty, exclusion, caste-based hierarchy, ethnic marginalization, and unequal land ownership remained largely unaddressed. Disillusionment with the political elite and their failure to deliver on promises created fertile ground for revolutionary ideologies.

The Maoists, under the leadership of Pushpa Kamal Dahal (Prachanda) and Dr. Baburam Bhattarai, articulated a radical agenda rooted in Marxist-Leninist-Maoist thought.

Key Objectives of the Insurgency:

• Abolish the monarchy and dismantle feudal structures.
• Establish a secular, federal, people's republic based on social justice.
• Uplift marginalized communities, including Dalits, Janajatis, Madhesis, women, and landless peasants.
• End caste, class, and gender discrimination.
• Redistribute land and wealth equitably.

The movement was framed not only as a class struggle but also as a liberation movement for Nepal's historically excluded groups.

The Course of the Conflict

Initially dismissed as a fringe rebellion, the Maoist insurgency gained rapid ground due to its guerrilla warfare tactics, local-level mobilization, and exploitation of the state's failure to deliver basic services in rural areas. By the early 2000s, they controlled significant swathes of territory across the mid-western and eastern hills.

The state responded with military operations, which intensified after the government declared the Maoists as terrorists in 2001. The same year, the royal massacre—in which King Birendra and much of the royal family were killed—ushered in King Gyanendra, who would later assert direct control over the government, further destabilizing the country.

Major Impacts of the Insurgency:

• Human Cost: Over 17,000 people were killed, including civilians, combatants, and state personnel. Thousands more were injured, disappeared, or displaced.
• Infrastructure Damage: Schools, health posts, police stations, roads, and bridges were frequently targeted and destroyed, disrupting public services and economic activity.
• Psychological and Social Impact: The war created deep social divisions and trauma. Family separations, child soldier recruitment, and human rights abuses by both sides marred the decade.
• Political Awakening: Despite the violence, the Maoist movement significantly raised political consciousness among marginalized communities, giving them a voice and encouraging participation in the political process.

The Path to Peace

After a decade of violence, both the Maoists and the state recognized that military victory was unlikely. A turning point came in 2005, when the Maoists entered into an understanding with Nepal's seven major political parties, united in their opposition to King Gyanendra's direct rule.

This alliance led to the 2006 People's Movement (Jana Andolan II), a massive nationwide uprising that forced the king to relinquish power and reinstate the House of Representatives. Following the movement, the Maoists entered mainstream politics and formally ended the armed struggle by signing the Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA) on November 21, 2006.

Key Provisions of the Comprehensive Peace Accord:

• Ceasefire and Disarmament: Maoist combatants were placed in cantonments under UN supervision, and the Maoist army was to be integrated or rehabilitated.
• Political Inclusion: The Maoists agreed to participate in democratic elections and help draft a new constitution.
• State Restructuring: Commitments were made to federalism, secularism, and inclusiveness, responding to the demands of marginalized groups.

The end of the insurgency marked the beginning of a new phase in Nepal's political evolution, leading to the abolition of the monarchy, the establishment of a federal democratic republic, and the drafting of a new constitution. However, the post-war transition was complex and fraught with challenges, which would unfold in the years that followed.

One of the most defining political movements of modern Nepal was the Maoist insurgency led by the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), beginning in 1996.

After ten years of violent conflict, the Maoists agreed to a Comprehensive Peace Accord in 2006, ending the civil war.

V. People's Movement II (Jana Andolan II) – 2006

The Second People's Movement, widely known as Jana Andolan II, was a decisive and transformative political uprising that marked the final collapse of absolute monarchy in Nepal and paved the way for the establishment of a federal democratic republic. It was the culmination of long-standing public discontent with monarchical rule, rising authoritarianism, and a desire for inclusive, participatory governance.

Background

Following the signing of the 12-point agreement in November 2005 between the Seven-Party Alliance (SPA) and the Maoists, a unified front was formed against King Gyanendra's direct rule. Gyanendra had dismissed the elected government in 2005, assumed absolute control, and justified his actions as necessary to combat Maoist insurgency and restore peace. However, his move was widely condemned as a coup against democracy.

This consolidation of royal power alienated not only political parties but also civil society, the media, students, lawyers, professionals, and even members of the traditional elite. What followed in April 2006 was a massive, nonviolent civil resistance movement across the country.

Key Features of Jana Andolan II

Massive Public Participation: Millions of Nepalis from all walks of life—urban and rural, young and old, men and women—took to the streets in a unified call for democracy. The protests were not limited to Kathmandu; they spanned across the nation, including in areas previously under Maoist influence.

Nineteen Days of Sustained Protest: The movement lasted for 19 consecutive days (April 4–24, 2006). Despite heavy curfews, bans on public gatherings, and use of live ammunition by security forces, the people persisted with remarkable resilience and nonviolence.

Unified Political Opposition: The Seven-Party Alliance—including major political parties like the Nepali Congress, CPN-UML, and others—led the protests with tactical coordination from the Maoists, who supported the movement from outside urban centers.

International Support and Pressure: The movement gained widespread support from the international community, including India, the European Union, the United Nations, and human rights organizations, all of whom urged the king to step down and respect democratic norms.

Outcomes and Achievements

1. Reinstatement of Parliament: On April 24, 2006, under overwhelming pressure, King Gyanendra announced the reinstatement of the dissolved House of Representatives, effectively ceding executive power to the political parties.
2. Formation of the Interim Government: An interim government was formed, including members of the Seven-Party Alliance and later the Maoists, signaling a historic transition from insurgency to mainstream politics.
3. Abolition of the Monarchy: In 2007, the interim parliament declared Nepal a secular state, and by May 28, 2008, the monarchy was formally abolished by the newly elected Constituent Assembly. Nepal was officially declared a Federal Democratic Republic, ending over 240 years of Shah monarchy.
4. Initiation of Constitution Drafting Process: The success of the movement led to the first Constituent Assembly elections in 2008, with the mandate to draft a new inclusive constitution that would restructure Nepal politically, socially, and administratively.

Significance of Jana Andolan II

• It was a defining moment in Nepal's modern history that demonstrated the power of nonviolent civic resistance.
• It created a platform for inclusive democracy, with increased participation from women, ethnic minorities, Dalits, and previously marginalized regions like the Madhes and Far West.
• It proved that the monarchy no longer held the political legitimacy or moral authority to govern a modern, democratic Nepal.

While the movement successfully ended royal authoritarianism, it also ushered in a complex transition period marked by fragile coalitions, identity politics, constitution-writing challenges, and continued demands for justice and representation.

VI. The New Constitution of 2015

After nearly a decade of political transition following the abolition of the monarchy in 2008, Nepal achieved a historic milestone with the promulgation of a new constitution on September 20, 2015. This landmark document laid the foundation for a new political order based on federalism, secularism, inclusion, and republicanism—marking the culmination of decades of struggle, civil conflict, and democratic movements.

Background and Context

The first Constituent Assembly (CA), elected in 2008, was tasked with drafting a new constitution. However, deep ideological differences—especially over issues like federal boundaries, identity politics, and the system of governance—prevented consensus, leading to the CA's dissolution in 2012.

A second Constituent Assembly was elected in 2013. This body finally reached a compromise after the devastating earthquake of April 2015, which underscored the urgency for political stability and effective governance. In this context, the major political parties—Nepali Congress (NC), CPN-UML, and CPN (Maoist Centre)—accelerated negotiations, resulting in the adoption of the new constitution.

Key Features of the Constitution of Nepal, 2015

1. Federal Democratic Republic: Nepal was restructured into a federal system with seven provinces, each with its own provincial government and legislature. The aim was to decentralize power and bring governance closer to the people.
2. Secularism: The constitution declared Nepal a secular state, with respect for all religions, marking a significant shift from its historical identity as a Hindu kingdom.
3. Parliamentary Democracy: The new system introduced a bicameral federal legislature (House of Representatives and National Assembly), with provisions for periodic elections, separation of powers, and checks and balances.
4. Fundamental Rights and Inclusion: A broad range of fundamental rights were enshrined, including:
   • Right to equality, education, health, and employment.
   • Proportional representation of women, Dalits, Janajatis, Madhesis, Muslims, and other marginalized communities in state structures.
   • Special provisions for gender equality, with at least 33% representation of women in Parliament and mandatory inclusion in political party structures.
5. Independent Judiciary and Constitutional Bodies: A separate judiciary with the Supreme Court at the apex was guaranteed. Other constitutional commissions—such as the National Dalit Commission, National Inclusion Commission, and National Women Commission—were established to protect minority and marginalized rights.
6. Language and Cultural Rights: The constitution recognized Nepali as the official language, but also allowed provinces to adopt local languages for official use. It upheld cultural pluralism, allowing ethnic groups to preserve and promote their heritage.

Public Reception and Controversies

Despite its progressive features, the constitution faced serious criticism and resistance, particularly from Madhesi, Tharu, Janajati, and other identity-based groups, who argued that:

• The federal demarcation did not reflect ethnic and regional identities, leading to concerns of continued exclusion.
• Citizenship provisions were discriminatory, especially affecting Madhesi women married to foreign nationals.
• The constitution was rushed through without broad-based consensus or proper consultation with marginalized communities.

Protests and Blockades

The dissatisfaction led to massive protests in the southern Terai (Madhes) region, where dozens of protesters were killed in clashes with security forces. The unrest coincided with an unofficial blockade by India at the Nepal-India border, which severely impacted the supply of fuel, medicines, and essential goods. This period of hardship strained Nepal's international relations and raised questions about national sovereignty, identity, and social harmony.

Significance of the Constitution

Despite its flaws and contested elements, the 2015 Constitution remains a landmark achievement in Nepal's political evolution:

• It institutionalized the values of democracy, pluralism, and rule of law.
• It created a framework for inclusive governance and decentralized power through federalism.
• It provided the legal basis for a peaceful political settlement after years of conflict and transition.

The constitution marked the beginning of a new era, but also highlighted that nation-building is an ongoing process. Addressing the concerns of marginalized groups, ensuring meaningful federalism, and delivering justice and equity remain crucial tasks for Nepal's political leadership.

VII. Recent Political Developments (2015–Present)

Since the promulgation of the new constitution in 2015, Nepal has experienced a dynamic and often turbulent political landscape characterized by democratic exercises, political realignments, institutional challenges, and growing civic engagement. These developments reflect both the opportunities and complexities of consolidating democracy in a diverse and evolving society.

1. 2017 Federal and Local Elections

The 2017 elections marked a historic milestone as the first electoral exercises conducted under the new constitutional framework. These elections were crucial for operationalizing the federal structure by electing representatives to:

• The federal parliament (House of Representatives and National Assembly),
• The provincial assemblies across the seven provinces, and
• Local government bodies, including municipalities and rural municipalities.

The elections resulted in a sweeping victory for the left alliance, a coalition between the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) (CPN-UML) and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre), signaling the public's desire for stability and development-oriented governance. The alliance formed the government under Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, marking a significant period of leftist political dominance.

2. Political Instability

Despite the initial electoral mandate, Nepal's political arena remained volatile due to internal party conflicts and power struggles:

• The Nepal Communist Party (NCP), created by the merger of the two leftist parties, soon faced intense factionalism and ideological rifts.
• The government experienced frequent challenges, culminating in the dissolution of Parliament in December 2020 by Prime Minister Oli, who cited legislative deadlock and instability.
• The dissolution was overturned by the Supreme Court in February 2021, reinstating Parliament and reaffirming constitutional supremacy.
• Again, in 2021, the government saw reshuffles and resignations, leading to the rise of coalition governments and political realignments.

Such instability has hindered sustained policy implementation and fueled public frustration with political elites.

3. Rise of New Political Forces

Nepal's evolving political landscape has witnessed the emergence of new political parties and voices, reflecting changing societal aspirations:

• The Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), founded in 2022, quickly gained traction by championing anti-corruption, transparency, and youth empowerment, attracting voters disillusioned with traditional parties.
• There is a marked increase in youth participation in politics, social activism, and demand for greater accountability and inclusion.
• Growing anti-establishment sentiments indicate a desire for fresh leadership and reforms beyond conventional party politics.

4. Judiciary's Increasing Role

In recent years, the Supreme Court of Nepal has played a pivotal role in upholding constitutionalism and democratic norms:

• The judiciary has intervened in political disputes, including the invalidation of parliamentary dissolutions and adjudication over party splits.
• It has acted as a guardian of fundamental rights, issuing rulings on civil liberties, electoral processes, and government accountability.

This assertiveness has strengthened the rule of law but also created tensions with political branches, highlighting the challenges of balancing judicial activism and political sovereignty.

Since 2015, Nepal's political developments demonstrate a democracy in transition—marked by achievements in federal governance and citizen participation, yet challenged by political volatility, institutional contestations, and social demands for inclusivity. The interplay between old power structures and emerging political forces continues to shape Nepal's path toward democratic consolidation and socio-political stability.

VIII. Challenges to Democracy in Nepal

Despite the remarkable political milestones and democratic gains achieved over the past several decades, Nepal continues to grapple with a range of persistent challenges that hinder the full consolidation and deepening of its democracy. These obstacles are rooted in structural, institutional, and socio-economic factors that require sustained efforts for resolution.

1. Corruption and Governance Issues

Corruption remains a pervasive problem across all levels of government in Nepal. Weak accountability mechanisms, lack of transparency, and patronage politics have undermined public trust in democratic institutions. Corruption not only diverts public resources but also obstructs effective service delivery and development initiatives, thereby eroding the legitimacy of elected officials and fueling popular discontent.

2. Identity Politics and Ethnic Tensions

Nepal's diverse ethnic, linguistic, and cultural landscape has made identity politics a dominant theme in contemporary governance. While federalism was designed to address the demands of marginalized groups, disagreements over provincial boundaries, representation quotas, and cultural recognition have generated tensions—particularly among Madhesis, Janajatis, Dalits, and other minority communities. These tensions sometimes lead to protests, social unrest, and political fragmentation, challenging national unity and inclusive governance.

3. Political Instability and Lack of Internal Party Democracy

Nepal's democratic politics are frequently disrupted by political instability, characterized by short-lived governments, frequent changes in leadership, and shifting coalitions. This volatility is partly due to internal factionalism and undemocratic practices within political parties, where decision-making is often centralized and dissent suppressed. The absence of robust internal party democracy hampers policy continuity and weakens public confidence in the political process.

4. Weak Judiciary and Bureaucratic Inefficiency

While the judiciary has become more assertive in recent years, challenges remain regarding judicial independence, capacity, and timeliness. Judicial delays, inconsistent rulings, and perceptions of politicization undermine the rule of law. Similarly, the civil service faces inefficiencies, inadequate training, and politicization, which limit effective implementation of policies and reforms, further affecting governance quality.

5. Unemployment and Economic Disparity

Economic challenges continue to exert pressure on Nepal's young and growing population. High unemployment rates, especially among youth, combined with regional economic disparities between urban centers and rural areas, fuel social frustrations. Poverty and limited access to education and healthcare services exacerbate inequalities, making it difficult for democracy to deliver meaningful improvements in people's lives and to sustain broad-based support.

These challenges highlight that Nepal's democratic development is an ongoing and complex process requiring multi-faceted solutions. Strengthening institutions, promoting social inclusion, ensuring transparency, and fostering political maturity are essential for Nepal to transform its democratic aspirations into durable, effective governance that benefits all its citizens.

IX. Role of Civil Society and Media

Civil society in Nepal has been a cornerstone of the country's democratic development, playing a vital role in advocating for rights, promoting transparency, and holding political actors accountable. Over the decades, various non-governmental organizations (NGOs), community groups, youth movements, professional associations, and human rights activists have contributed to shaping public discourse and safeguarding democratic values.

Civil Society's Contributions

Advocacy and Awareness: Civil society groups have raised awareness on issues such as good governance, social inclusion, gender equality, and environmental protection. Their efforts have helped to educate citizens about their rights and the importance of participation in the democratic process.

Monitoring and Accountability: Through watchdog activities, civil society organizations have monitored government policies, election processes, and human rights conditions. They have provided critical reports and recommendations that pressure authorities to uphold ethical standards and rule of law.

Empowerment of Marginalized Groups: Many grassroots organizations work directly with women, ethnic minorities, Dalits, and other marginalized communities, empowering them to voice their concerns and engage in political and social decision-making.

The Role of Media

The media landscape in Nepal has grown increasingly vibrant and diverse, evolving from strict censorship during the Panchayat era to a more open, albeit challenging, environment today.

Traditional Media: Newspapers, radio, and television channels have been instrumental in informing the public, exposing corruption, and providing platforms for political debate. Investigative journalism has played a critical role in uncovering malpractice and encouraging government transparency.

Rise of Social Media and Digital Platforms: The advent of social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube has revolutionized political engagement in Nepal, particularly among the youth. These tools have been vital for:

• Mobilizing mass movements, such as the Jana Andolan II (2006) and recent protests.
• Disseminating real-time information, bypassing traditional media filters.
• Enabling citizens to voice opinions, share grievances, and organize grassroots campaigns.

Challenges for Media Freedom: Despite progress, the media in Nepal faces challenges including political pressure, threats to journalists, misinformation, and issues related to media ownership concentration. Maintaining a free, independent, and responsible media remains essential for Nepal's democratic health.

Youth Organizations and Human Rights Activists

Young people have been at the forefront of many democratic struggles in Nepal, channeling their energy and idealism through student unions, youth federations, and advocacy groups. Their activism has pushed for reforms in education, employment, gender rights, and environmental sustainability.

Human rights activists and organizations have tirelessly documented abuses, supported victims, and advocated for justice and reconciliation, especially in the post-conflict period. Their work continues to remind the state and society of the importance of upholding dignity and equality.

The vibrant engagement of civil society and media remains indispensable in strengthening Nepal's democracy. As facilitators of dialogue, accountability, and empowerment, they serve as both watchdogs and partners in building a more inclusive, transparent, and participatory political culture.

Conclusion

Nepal's political transformation from a centuries-old absolute monarchy to a vibrant federal democratic republic represents a remarkable and often tumultuous journey driven by the resilience and aspirations of its people. The modern political movements—the 1951 Democratic Revolution, the 1990 People's Movement, and the 2006 uprising—have been pivotal milestones that dismantled authoritarian regimes and paved the way for participatory governance, inclusivity, and social justice.

Each phase of Nepal's political evolution reflects the complex interplay of diverse social forces, from monarchy and political parties to marginalized communities and insurgent groups, all striving for representation, rights, and equity. While Nepal's democratic institutions have made significant strides in constitutional development, electoral practices, and civil liberties, the country still faces persistent challenges such as political instability, corruption, ethnic tensions, and economic disparities.

Nevertheless, the continued activism of civil society, the engagement of youth, and the increasing assertiveness of democratic institutions offer promising signs. Nepal's experience underscores that democracy is not a destination but an ongoing process of negotiation, reform, and inclusion. With sustained commitment to strengthening governance, addressing social divisions, and upholding constitutional principles, Nepal holds the potential to realize a more inclusive, stable, and prosperous future for all its citizens.

Timeline of Key Events