Politics in Nepal has long been perceived as a contest for power rather than a means of governance. From the Panchayat regime’s top-down control to the recalibrated democratic and republican system of governance of the last three decades, the change discourse within governance has hardly translated into a policy-system reset. As such, the nature of political culture in Nepal persistently disconnects between political ideals and policymaking practices, reflecting a long-standing institutional weakness.

The term ‘political culture’, as used here, pertains to the attitudes, beliefs and normative behaviours that shape how citizens and the political class view politics and governance. It is what shapes how citizens perceive authority, participation, rights and duties. In our collective history, this culture has remained leader-centric, hierarchical and transactional. Such orientations have created institutional ironies: The country formally embraces democracy; however, its decision-making processes continue to operate within the traditional logic of patronage, loyalty and short-sighted pragmatism.

Political struggle to policy stagnation

The political transitions of 1990, 2006 and 2015 in Nepal were defining moments of collective struggle and democratic aspirations. Each transition promised new institutions and new ways of thinking about political power and policy. However, over time, political parties have turned from vehicles of reform into leader-centric groups. The resulting policymaking environment became more reactionary rather than visionary. As a result, it got dominated by short-term interests, non-natural coalition arithmetic, and complemented by bureaucratic lethargy.

Consider, for example, the state of federalism in Nepal. The 2015 Constitution mandated federalism as a means to bring governance closer to the people, decentralise power and strengthen local development. However, this has been weakened by conflicting political incentives. More often than not, the central political class treat federalism as a tool to control the state machinery rather than empower it. In popular perception, provincial and local leaders replicate the same clientelist and crony structures down to the sub-national levels. Therefore, instead of evolving as a space for policy innovation, federal governance has become a structural tool for distributing political favours and patronage.

These governance malpractices stem not from flaws in institutional design, but from an unwillingness to change the prevailing political culture. Nepal’s political class continues to see the state as a resource to be captured and redistributed among its loyalist networks. As such, the idea of public policy as an evidence-based, inclusive and technocratic process keeps confronting party politics and factional bargaining.

The bureaucracy as a mirror

Not just the political class, but the bureaucratic class too, reflect these cultural patterns. Civil servants are routinely caught between adherence to formal rules and the implicit informal expectations that operate in the background. Be it real or perceived, the prevailing narrative holds that transfers, promotions and appointments are determined less by performance and more by proximity to power. As a result, bureaucratic morale is often questioned, institutional memory is weak, and the incentive to innovate or take risks is minimal.

The hierarchical obedience as a norm prevails, where junior officials avoid challenging seniors and critical debate on emerging issues is hardly practised, thus inhibiting policy creativity. The dominant public sentiment is that, even when well-intentioned bureaucrats attempt reform, they have to encounter a political class who care more about their political survival and less about effective service delivery.

This has institutionalised a cycle of mutual dependency: Politicians rely on bureaucrats for technocratic information and implementation that advances self-interests, whereas bureaucrats rely on politicians for their career security. The outcome is a policymaking environment that is largely symbolic in nature and insufficiently substantive in actual practice.

Substance over a culture of symbolism

Another characteristic of Nepal’s political culture is its subconscious embeddedness with symbolism. Policymakers often emphasise announcement over implementation and visibility over effectiveness. From launching “new visions” in every election to promising “new reform and new model” across ministries, provinces and municipalities, the politics of optics continue to prevail over the politics of outcome.

Such symbolic action reflects a deeper issue: The near-absence of accountability. The policy’s success is not measured by initial promises and intentions, but by impact. Leaders face little to no pressure to follow through. The result is numerous plans, committees and commissions that hardly yield any observable outcomes. A performative policymaking culture like this contributes to wasting state resources and the erosion of public confidence.

There are growing talks within Nepal’s academic and civil society networks about the need for evidence-based policymaking. Several public and private institutions in Nepal continue to produce numerous research and policy papers on governance, politics, economics and development. In practice, however, these policy prescriptions seldom penetrate the corridors of power.

Part of the problem also lies in the gap between research and policy. This gap is sustained by both structural and cultural realities. Policymakers view research as an academic exercise rather than a critical tool for decision-making. As for researchers, they are cautious about being co-opted by politics and prefer to remain detached. Mitigating these understanding deficits via institutional and cultural shifts is a necessity. A forward-looking approach lies in debate, knowledge production and long-term vision over the symbolic convenience.

Generational shifts

Nepal’s political culture is also shaped by the continued influence of political dynasticism. As is often the case, leadership positions are typically handed down to family networks or loyalists, and hierarchies are rarely open to merit-based competition. Political currencies are accumulated through lineage, loyalty and patronage rather than ideas and political will.

Such a trend has a far-reaching effect on policy implications. It weakens internal debate and intellectual renewal within parties, leading to policy paralysis. Besides that, younger politicians, even when well-educated and globally and locally aware, often find themselves constrained and shaped by patronage networks. In such an environment, ensuring survival with conformity prevails over innovating policy for delivery.

Despite these challenges, there are encouraging indicators of change. A younger generation of politicians, policymakers, bureaucrats and scholars is steadily advocating for transparency, data-driven decision-making and participatory planning. The expansion of civic literacy, along with the influence of new media, has weakened the monopoly of the political class in forming public narratives. The role of citizenry is rapidly evolving. Local governments, in particular, are offering a glimmer of hope. In many municipalities, innovative mayors and ward leaders are experimenting with participatory planning, budgeting and local accountability. This effort reflects that when political incentives align with community-level interests, political culture can indeed evolve.

However, sustaining such an effort requires a strong political courage: The willingness to challenge institutionalised hierarchies and to redefine leadership as stewardship of the public good rather than power capture. At its core, the reform to political culture begins within the political parties themselves. Parties must democratise their internal structures, promote merit-based leadership, and institutionalise policy research wings that go beyond a mere election manifesto.

Towards a culture of responsibility

Nepal’s policy challenges are not just institutional; they are moral too. It must thrive for a culture of collective responsibility over procedural formalities. Progress is realised when all actors take ownership of their actions: The political class must view public office as stewardship rather than entitlement, and citizens must realise participation as a must-do duty rather than symbolic action.

That said, reforming political culture is not a quick fix. It is a “multi-generational project”. This begins with small shifts: Recognising evidence over emotion, transparency over secrecy and collaboration over control. Nepal’s democracy is still unfolding. As it matures into a system capable of delivering equitable and effective policies, its primary objective must be the advancement of institutional robustness, along with reforming the character of its politics.