An enforceable mechanism of public accountability (EMPA) is the cornerstone of democratic governance. In practice, depending on the legal urgency and administrative reasonableness of a case, measures such as rule-based sanctions, a time-bound review process and real-time financial tracking by the competent agencies determine whether state institutions genuinely serve citizens or merely shield power elites and/or a vested interest.

The strong showing of the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) in the 2026 general election, together with its call for constitutional amendments, has renewed debate on how Nepal can strengthen institutional accountability. As argued in Rethinking electoral systems published in this paper, reforms must balance plural representation, political stability and governance legitimacy. Yet electoral design alone cannot secure this balance; it ultimately depends on enforceable accountability across state institutions.

The central question confronting Nepal today is whether accountability is strengthening or insidiously eroding behind intact constitutional forms.

The gap in enforcement

Nepal’s Constitution establishes a framework of accountability through the separation of powers among the executive, legislature, judiciary and the media. In theory, this arrangement ensures that no institution exercises unchecked authority. In practice, however, enforcement has remained poor.

The executive branch—headed by the prime minister and the Council of Ministers—is accountable to the Parliament and subject to oversight by bodies such as the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) and the Office of the Auditor-General. Yet political patronage, frequent government turnover and bureaucratic opacity often dilute scrutiny. Administrative accountability tends to follow political alignment rather than institutional discipline—illustrating the enduring maxim that power without scrutiny soon forgets the public interest.

The legislature is expected to hold the executive accountable through debates, parliamentary committees and budget oversight. Parliamentary committees have occasionally exposed governance irregularities, but their effectiveness is often constrained by coalition bargaining, strict party discipline and limited technical capacity for detailed policy scrutiny.

The judiciary is positioned as the guardian of constitutional accountability. Courts have played important roles in resolving constitutional disputes and protecting fundamental rights. However, persistent delays in judicial processes and controversies surrounding appointments have periodically affected public confidence in the system.

The media—print, electronic and digital—has expanded rapidly, particularly through online platforms and social media. Investigative journalism has exposed governance failures and corruption. Yet concentrated ownership patterns, political affiliations and the spread of misinformation online have complicated the media’s role as an impartial watchdog.

The gap between constitutional ideals and real accountability is also reflected in global governance indicators. According to the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index, Nepal has scored in the mid-30s out of 100 in recent years, placing it in the middle-to-lower global range and signalling persistent concerns about corruption and weak enforcement.

Similarly, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the global body monitoring money laundering and terrorism financing, has placed Nepal under its ‘grey list’, officially termed Jurisdictions Under Increased Monitoring, highlighting weaknesses in financial oversight and regulatory enforcement.

Comparative practices

Experiences from neighbouring countries underline that public accountability becomes effective only when transparency is paired with enforceable consequences. In India, accountability operates through a multi-channel system—parliamentary committees, an independent judiciary, anti-corruption bodies, and the Right to Information Act—with investigative journalism and civil society repeatedly exposing wrongdoing and compelling official response. By contrast, China follows an indigenous institutional pathway, in which the party’s disciplinary mechanisms drive enforcement; anti-corruption campaigns led by the Chinese Communist Party demonstrate that even senior officials are subject to swift internal sanction, emphasising decisiveness over procedural openness.

In Bangladesh, a hybrid model is visible: Parliamentary oversight and anti-corruption institutions coexist with an increasingly assertive media and civil society. Although enforcement remains uneven, sustained investigative reporting has pushed accountability into the core of national political discourse. A more consolidated model is exemplified by Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew, where strict enforcement, meritocratic bureaucracy, and vigilant oversight institutionalised a culture of zero tolerance for corruption. The governing lesson is clear: Public accountability is credible only when violations trigger swift, certain consequences—because once public trust erodes, it is far harder to rebuild than to preserve.

Role of institutions

Political thinkers have long emphasised that democratic accountability depends on strong institutions. Samuel P Huntington highlighted the importance of institutionalised authority for political order, while Amartya Sen emphasised transparency and open public debate as foundations of responsible governance.

Drawing from these insights, the following reforms could strengthen accountability in Nepal.

First, institutional independence must be reinforced. Oversight bodies, including anti-corruption agencies, audit institutions, and parliamentary committees, must operate free from partisan interference.

Second, transparency should expand through digital governance. Open data platforms, e-procurement systems, and publicly accessible government records can significantly reduce corruption opportunities. Operationally, financial data platforms across banks, procurement agencies, the Controller-General’s Office, and tax authorities should be interconnected for real-time monitoring and oversight.

Third, civic oversight and professional media standards must not be compromised. Civil society organisations, academic institutions, and responsible journalism remain essential for identifying governance failures and sustaining public vigilance. In a democratic culture, sunlight remains the best disinfectant.

Politics of agitation

Nepal’s modern political history reveals a close relationship between poor accountability and recurring waves of political agitation. Since the restoration of multiparty democracy following the 1990 People’s Movement, governance failures and corruption allegations have periodically eroded public trust.

During the decade-long Nepalese Civil War and the youth-driven demonstrations of late 2025, public dissatisfaction intensified whenever institutions failed to deliver credible accountability. Citizens increasingly perceived that power elites remained insulated from the consequences of their decisions.

When institutional remedies appear ineffective, political frustration often spills into street mobilisation and, at times, confrontation. Nepal’s recurring cycles of agitation, from democratic restoration to contemporary governance debates, can therefore be interpreted largely as a societal response to poor accountability mechanisms within formal institutions.

Practical steps forward

Nepal’s democratic consolidation requires reforms that citizens can experience in everyday governance. The government should institutionalise comprehensive transparency systems, particularly through digital disclosure of public contracts, development expenditures and administrative decisions. Transparency functions as a preventive mechanism against corruption. Equally vital is strengthening merit-based appointments and institutional independence in oversight bodies so that constitutional commissions and regulatory agencies operate free from partisan influence.