Nepal's history of political instability

  //politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. 09/nepal-s-history-of-political-instability.html
  Published in Politics and Government on Tuesday, September 9th 2025 at 10:04 GMT by The Straits Times

From Monarchy to Republic: The Persistent Political Instability that Shapes Nepal

Nestled between the towering Himalayas and the plains of the Indian sub‑continent, Nepal has long been a crossroads of cultures, religions and, most recently, political ideologies. Its modern history—stretching from the mid‑19th‑century autocratic Rana regime to today’s federal democratic republic—is punctuated by a series of revolutions, coups, insurgencies and constitutional experiments that have left the nation with a staggering number of prime ministers, short‑lived coalitions and an ever‑evolving political map. A close look at the country’s political chronology reveals why Nepal continues to be seen as one of the world’s most politically volatile states.

1. The Foundations of Autocracy (1846‑1951)

The Rana dynasty, which began with Jung Bahadur Rana’s coup in 1846, established a hereditary oligarchy that effectively sidelined the Shah monarchs. For more than a half‑century the Ranas exercised almost absolute power, steering Nepal toward isolation and hindering institutional development. In 1951, however, a popular revolution—led by the Nepali Congress and supported by the Royal Army—ended Rana rule and restored the Shah monarchy.

2. The Early Democratisation Effort (1951‑1960)

The 1951 revolution sparked a wave of optimism. The country drafted a new constitution in 1955 and held its first general election in 1959, which gave the Nepali Congress a sweeping victory. Yet King Tribhuvan’s insistence on retaining executive powers created friction. In 1960, the king staged a self‑coup, dissolved Parliament and introduced the Panchayat system—a partyless, royal‑dominated structure that lasted until 1990. During the Panchayat era, Nepal’s political institutions remained weak, but the regime did bring a modicum of stability by suppressing dissent.

3. The Return of Multiparty Democracy (1990‑1996)

The People’s Movement of 1990—known locally as Jana Andolan—proved to be a turning point. Mass protests, led largely by students and workers, forced King Birendra to accede to a constitutional monarchy and to re‑establish a multi‑party parliamentary system. The first free elections were held in 1991, ushering in a new era of democratic politics. Nevertheless, the nascent system struggled with entrenched patronage networks, a fragmented political landscape and limited public trust.

4. The Maoist Insurgency and the End of the Monarchy (1996‑2008)

In 1996, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) launched a ten‑year armed insurgency aimed at dismantling the monarchy and establishing a people's republic. The conflict, which lasted until 2006, caused tens of thousands of deaths, widespread displacement and a massive humanitarian crisis. The war’s toll prompted a coalition of parties, including the Nepali Congress and the CPN‑UML, to negotiate the Comprehensive Peace Accord in 2006, which ended the insurgency, integrated Maoist combatants into the army, and set the stage for a new constitution.

The political ramifications were immediate and profound. In 2008, the monarchy was formally abolished and Nepal declared itself a federal democratic republic. The Constituent Assembly, elected that same year, embarked on drafting a new constitution that would re‑define the country’s political architecture.

5. Constitutional Experimentation and the 2015 Constitution

The Constituent Assembly’s task was daunting. After a decade of deliberation and a series of stalled drafts, a new constitution was promulgated on September 20, 2015. The document created a federal republic composed of seven provinces, established a comprehensive rights charter and attempted to balance ethnic representation with meritocratic governance. Unfortunately, the new structure inherited deep divisions: parties splintered, power struggles intensified, and a lack of consensus on the distribution of resources among provinces created persistent friction.

The 2015 earthquake—an 8.0‑strength shock that struck April 25—exacerbated these tensions. The government’s response was hampered by the still‑under‑construction administrative framework, leading to accusations of mismanagement and corruption. The crisis underscored the fragility of Nepal’s newly minted institutions and revealed how political instability can hamper effective disaster response.

6. Fragmented Coalitions and Frequent Cabinet Changes

Since the promulgation of the constitution, Nepal has seen a dizzying number of political manoeuvres. From 2015 to 2023, there have been more than a dozen prime ministers, each having faced at least one no‑confidence motion or party withdrawal. Key episodes include:

• 2016 – The CPN (Maoist Centre) withdrew from the government after a dispute over the allocation of ministries, forcing the dissolution of the cabinet.
• 2018 – The first post‑constitution prime minister, Sher Bahadur Deuba, was ousted by a no‑confidence vote amid accusations of corruption and inability to form a stable government.
• 2021 – A coalition collapse triggered a constitutional crisis when the Supreme Court ruled that the house had to be dissolved, prompting fresh elections.
• 2022 – The general election saw a fragmented vote share: the Nepali Congress, the Nepal Communist Party (which itself had split into CPN‑UML and CPN (Maoist Centre)), and a host of regional parties all securing sizable parliamentary seats, but none capable of forming an outright majority.

Each of these episodes is symptomatic of deeper structural weaknesses: an overly fragmented party system, a nascent federal structure still grappling with power devolution, and a culture of patronage politics that undermines stable governance.

7. The Economic Consequences of Instability

Political volatility has tangible costs for Nepal’s economy. Frequent changes in leadership disrupt long‑term policy planning, discourage foreign investment, and exacerbate the country’s chronic fiscal deficit. The government’s attempts to attract infrastructure projects, such as hydropower plants, have been stalled by uncertainty over policy continuity and land‑use rights. Moreover, the persistent instability has made it difficult for Nepal to negotiate long‑term agreements with its two most important trade partners—India and China.

8. Moving Forward: What Would Stabilise Nepal?

Experts argue that genuine political stability requires three critical reforms:

1. Constitutional Clarity – A clearer delineation of powers between the federal and provincial governments could reduce disputes over resource allocation.
2. Party‑Reform Mechanisms – Introducing thresholds for parliamentary entry and incentivising party unity could curb fragmentation.
3. Institutional Strengthening – Robust, independent judiciaries and electoral commissions are essential to uphold democratic norms and prevent manipulation of political processes.

Additionally, addressing systemic issues such as corruption, weak rule of law, and the marginalisation of ethnic minorities will help build public trust in the political system.

9. Conclusion

The story of Nepal’s political instability is one of resilience and rupture. From Rana autocracy to a federal republic, the nation has repeatedly reinvented itself, only to be undone by a combination of weak institutions, fragmented party politics and entrenched patronage networks. The 2015 constitution was a milestone, but it also codified a complex federal structure that remains difficult to manage. As Nepal continues to grapple with these challenges, the country’s future hinges on whether its leaders can forge a more cohesive political culture—one that balances the demands of diverse ethnic groups with the need for stable, transparent governance. For now, Nepal stands at a crossroads: a decisive moment that could either cement democratic progress or reinforce a cycle of volatility that has long defined its political landscape.