Today, Singha Durbar appears unusually quiet. Citizen presence has declined sharply, and federal ministries that once bustled with political leaders, party cadres and ordinary citizens now feel almost deserted. This silence is not merely physical; it reflects a deeper shift in the location of democratic life and public engagement. Several government secretaries have observed that this silence was unprecedented. In the past, Singha Durbar was a magnet for public engagement; today, that vibrancy has largely disappeared. This shift is not coincidental. In the absence of an elected government, the natural connection between citizens and the state weakens, democratic engagement declines and the rule of law suffers.

Interestingly, the public attention that once gravitated towards Singha Durbar has now shifted downward, to the provinces. Ironically, while the Gen Z movement caused the greatest institutional disruption at the provincial level, provinces have nevertheless emerged as the main centres of public trust and expectation. This reality underscores a simple truth: A government without electoral legitimacy carries limited public relevance.

Singha Durbar historically drew citizens because political power, administrative authority and fiscal resources were overwhelmingly centralised. Even powers constitutionally assigned to provinces and local governments have been retained at the centre, reinforcing this central pull. The relevance of provinces will truly deepen when functions currently performed in Singha Durbar are effectively exercised from provincial capitals.

This brings us to a fundamental question: Why are provinces necessary in Nepal, and why does meaningful federalism depend not merely on constitutional design but on genuine devolution of power, functions and resources?

At its core, federalism is a system in which power is constitutionally divided and shared between national and subnational governments. In Nepal’s context, however, federalism signifies far more than an institutional arrangement. It represents long-denied demands for rights, dignity, identity and inclusion under a centralised unitary state. Nearly a decade after the promulgation of the 2015 Constitution, Nepal’s federal experiment continues to face turbulence; not because federalism is flawed in principle, but because it has been implemented with hesitation and resistance.

The idea of federalism in Nepal is not new. It was articulated nearly 75 years ago. As early as 1951, during the establishment of the Nepal Tarai Congress Party, its founding documents proposed reorganising Nepal into two or more provinces based on linguistic, geographical, economic and social foundations. These provinces were envisioned as self-governing units with full authority over internal administration, united within a federal framework. In 1957, the party took a further step, formally proposing regional autonomy for the Tarai while highlighting discrimination in language, ethnicity and political representation.

After the political change of 1990, the Nepal Sadbhavana Party revived the federalism agenda during the 1991 general elections, arguing that a federal system was essential to strengthen national unity in a multilingual and multicultural society. It emphasised proportional inclusion, balanced participation and the protection of diverse languages, cultures and identities across the mountains, hills and Tarai.

Subsequently, the decade-long Maoist movement forcefully raised issues of rights and discrimination, including debates on ethnic-based provinces. The Madhesh movement further sharpened demands for inclusion, representation and provincial autonomy. The Indigenous Nationalities movement added momentum to these calls. The first amendment to the Interim Constitution of 2007 formally committed Nepal to federalism, and the declaration of Nepal as a federal democratic republic by the Constituent Assembly marked a decisive break from the centralised state.

Federalism in Nepal thus emerged from lived experiences of ethnic, linguistic, representational and gender-based discrimination. Debates on administrative boundaries and fiscal arrangements came later. At its core, federalism is about identity, dignity and recognition.

When these historical and political struggles are viewed together, the rationale for federalism rests on five fundamental pillars: ending excessive centralisation and structural exclusion, advancing social justice and economic equality, strengthening inclusive and participatory democracy, ensuring representation, recognition and access, and developing leadership and accountability across multiple levels of government.

Yet, those entrusted with nurturing the new system were often reluctant guardians. Federalism was accepted largely as a compromise to integrate insurgent forces into the peace process rather than as a shared conviction. As a result, federalism has often resembled an unwanted baby. The Constitution embraced the form of federalism but struggled to internalise its spirit.

Despite these shortcomings, federalism has redistributed power in unprecedented ways. For the first time, authority has been shared among three constitutionally empowered tiers: federal, provincial and local. Across 753 local governments and seven provinces, representatives now formulate laws, plans and budgets. Citizens no longer depend entirely on Singha Durbar’s discretion.

However, the intended outcomes remain incomplete. Provinces and local levels have not been able to fully exercise their constitutional powers. Even after ten years, the Civil Service Act remains unenacted. Provinces lack authority over policing, and police integration is unresolved. The persistent centralising mindset has created governance bottlenecks and eroded public trust. The Gen Z movement itself reflects, in part, frustration with excessive concentration of power and lack of transparency.

Federalism’s fragility is further exposed by institutional inertia. Constitutional bodies meant to manage coordination and resolve disputes—the Inter-Provincial Council, the National Coordination Council and the Sectoral Committees—have been ineffective or dormant.

Yet, despite its imperfections, federalism has delivered something no previous system could: dignity, access and empowerment for ordinary citizens. Provinces are not an optional layer; they are the backbone of federalism. Without provinces, Nepal would revert to administrative deconcentration rather than genuine power-sharing. Provinces coordinate among local governments on cross-boundary issues, staffing and lawmaking matters.

Comparative experience reinforces this logic. In many countries that have recently adopted federal or quasi-federal systems, the upper house plays a critical role as a guardian of federalism and provincial interests. South Africa, which moved toward a federal-style system in 1996, established the 'National Council of Provinces', composed entirely of delegates from provincial governments. This chamber holds significant authority, including veto power on legislation affecting provincial interests. Brazil offers another instructive example. Like Nepal, it has a three-tier structure—federal, state and local.

In most federal systems, provinces are institutionally reinforced not only through executive and fiscal powers but also through a strong upper house. Nepal’s experience is different. Although the National Assembly was constitutionally envisaged as a federal-guarding institution, it remains comparatively weak vis-à-vis the House of Representatives. Despite having voting rights, it lacks the authority and political weight necessary to protect provincial interests. This imbalance further weakens provinces and underscores the need for reform.

No system born of sacrifice can be easily reversed. The same people’s power that achieved federalism will sustain it. The real question, therefore, is not whether Nepal needs provinces, but how to make them capable, accountable and citizen-centred. Provinces matter because they anchor democracy beyond Kathmandu, translate constitutional promises into lived realities, and restore dignity, access and voice to ordinary citizens. Strengthening provinces and the institutions that protect them means strengthening democracy itself. Federalism in Nepal, rooted in dignity, identity and popular sovereignty, is a permanent feature. It is precisely why provinces matter and why they are here to stay.