Switzerland has been practising federalism for the past 177 years. The country has continuously adapted to its institutions and practices. This long history makes Switzerland a rich source of lessons for Nepal, which is still in the early stages of its federal experiment—barely a decade since adopting a federal constitution in 2015, and with only eight years of practical implementation since the federal units elections of 2017 and 2022. Nepal, as it struggles with constitutional reform, institutional strengthening, leadership change and effective public service delivery, has much to learn from Switzerland.

According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Outlook Database, Nepal’s GDP is $48 billion, while Switzerland’s is $1,000 billion, about 21 times larger than Nepal’s. Per capita income shows an even wider gap: $1,486 in Nepal versus $111,716 in Switzerland. Yet, in terms of both geography and population, Switzerland is 3.6 times smaller than Nepal.

Switzerland has 26 provinces (cantons) and 2,121 local governments (communes). These figures demonstrate that economic strength does not simply depend on population size or territorial extent. Switzerland’s case shows that good governance, sound institutions and effective federalism are the prerequisites for development.

Meanwhile, in Nepal, the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML signed a seven-point agreement to run a joint government last year. At its core was a commitment to maintain political stability by prioritising constitutional amendments and enacting the necessary laws. Yet, nothing has been done. On September 19, the constitution will mark its 10th anniversary, but the promised reforms have yet to be delivered. To form a coalition in the name of constitutional reform, only to neglect it, is not merely negligence—it is a betrayal.

A constitution is a living document. If its shortcomings are not addressed, citizens’ frustrations continue to mount, and ultimately the constitution itself may fail—as was the case with the 1990 constitution, which collapsed despite being well-crafted.

Switzerland provides a powerful contrast. Since adopting federalism in 1848, the Swiss constitution has been amended nearly 200 times, including comprehensive revisions in 1874 and 1999. This willingness to adapt is precisely why the Swiss constitution has endured and grown stronger over time.

Switzerland’s federal roots trace back to 1291, when the three cantons of Uri, Schwyz and Unterwalden formed a defensive alliance through the Federal Charter. This gradually expanded into the Old Swiss Confederacy, a loose network of independent states. The French invasion of 1798 imposed the centralised Helvetic Republic, which collapsed after a few years. Napoleon’s Act of Mediation in 1803 restored cantonal autonomy and fixed borders. In 1815, the Federal Treaty established Switzerland as a confederation of 22 independent cantons. Rising tensions culminated in the Sonderbund War of 1847, after which Switzerland adopted its first Federal constitution in 1848, transforming the confederation into a modern federal state.

The 1848 constitution created a bicameral parliament, a collegial Federal Council of seven members and recognised cantonal sovereignty within constitutional limits. The constitution was revised in 1874, introducing referendums and strengthening the federal role. In 1891, the popular initiative was added, enabling citizens to propose constitutional changes directly. Over time, political rights expanded—most notably women’s suffrage in 1971. In 1979, the Canton of Jura was created, raising the total number of cantons to 26. Finally, in 1999, Switzerland adopted a fully revised constitution, modernising the federal order without undermining cantonal autonomy.

Lessons for Nepal

I am in Switzerland, participating in a week-long study programme on Intergovernmental Cooperation and Competition in the Swiss Federal System, organised by the University of Fribourg’s Institute of Federalism. The programme, led by Professor Eva Maria Belser, Rekha Oleschak, and other experts, provides in-depth insights into how Swiss federalism works. Joining me in this programme are Madhesh Province Chief Minister Satish Kumar Singh, former Koshi Province Chief Minister and Nepali Congress leader Uddhav Thapa, Maoist leader Indra Bahadur Angbo, Madhesh University Vice-Chancellor Dipak Shakya, Chairperson of the National Association of Rural Municipalities, Laxmi Pandey, and other colleagues. Our shared learning during this programme is the main source of reflection for this article.

The lectures and discussions underline five key pillars of federalism that are relevant for Nepal. The first is subsidiarity and local empowerment, where public tasks are carried out at the lowest effective level—communes, cantons, or Confederation—keeping governance close to citizens. Nepal’s subnational levels must embrace this principle for effective service delivery.

The second is cantonal autonomy and bicameral consent, where each canton has its own constitution, parliament, government and courts. Constitutional amendments require a double majority of citizens and cantons, ensuring balance. Provinces still lack policing powers, face unfair resource distribution, and have not received proper authority over civil service administration.

The third pillar is direct democracy and citizen participation, where referendums and popular initiatives give Swiss citizens direct control over constitutional and legislative outcomes. Nepal lacks such institutionalised mechanisms, but citizen engagement remains critical. For now, participation is especially vital in lawmaking and budget formulation.

Fourth is fiscal equalisation and solidarity, in which the National Fiscal Equalisation system—funded jointly by the federation and wealthier cantons—redistributes billions annually to reduce disparities. Nepal’s fiscal transfer system must be strengthened to build trust among subnational levels, and a mechanism for horizontal resource sharing also needs to be established. The fifth is consensus governance and diversity, where the seven-member federal council shares executive authority collegially, rotating the presidency annually, while linguistic and cultural diversity is constitutionally protected.

Switzerland shows that federalism succeeds through adaptation, inclusiveness and stability, not rigidity. Nepal is only 10 years into its new constitutional journey, with real implementation time limited to eight years. Leadership remains fragile, and institutions are still consolidating. Switzerland demonstrates that stability requires continuous change: Nearly 200 constitutional amendments have kept its system relevant. Leadership rotation prevents dominance: The Swiss president changes every year, and ministers collectively run the government. Public service delivery is professionalised, not politicised. These are precisely the areas where Nepal must improve.

Swiss federalism was not born in a day; it grew out of centuries of conflict, compromise and reform. This reminds us that Nepal’s own federal experiment will also take time, patience and adaptation. Federalism is not a fixed structure but a living system that must evolve with citizens’ needs. The Swiss model shows that subsidiarity keeps power close to the people, cantonal autonomy preserves diversity, direct democracy ensures accountability and fiscal equalisation sustains solidarity. These principles are not abstract—they are lived realities in Switzerland.

Nepal’s challenge is not to copy Switzerland, but to embrace its spirit of adaptation, inclusion and shared responsibility. Only then will federalism truly safeguard democracy and deliver development for the people.

Devkota is an expert in federalism.