A state’s credibility in foreign affairs does not begin when it signs agreements, engages in diplomatic discourse, or convenes high-level negotiations; it begins at home. Diplomatic assurances, treaty commitments and strategic alignments derive their reliability not merely from formal declarations, but from the internal strength of representative and plenipotentiary institutions. As argued in Electoral Reform Systems and Direction of Public Accountability, these institutions embody the state—Nepal in our case—and must reflect a system grounded in coherent electoral reform and an operationally enforceable mechanism of public accountability.

When electoral representation is fragmented and accountability is poor, those entrusted with external affairs lack both competence and credibility. Foreign policy in such conditions becomes ad hoc, interest-driven and personalised, rendering external behaviour inconsistent and reactive.

Nepal stands geo-economically at a critical juncture. Its location between two major powers India and China creates both opportunity and constraint. As noted by former Prime Minister Sushil Koirala, Nepal’s external relations unfold through the geographic and political spaces of its neighbours. In this setting, credibility is not a luxury but a strategic necessity. The state’s ability to act with confidence, consistency and predictability depends on how effectively its domestic political-administrative system is designed and enforced.

This is where the convergence of a majoritarian electoral system and enforceable public accountability counts.

Electoral design shapes both representation and stability. Fragmented or volatile systems produce fragile coalitions, frequent policy reversals and shortened tenures. Governments under such conditions lack both legitimacy and the time horizon required to pursue a coherent foreign policy. Nepal’s ‘independent foreign policy of only discerned best choices’ reflects this structural reality—its geostrategic position between the Gangetic plains and the Himalayan passes. Within this constraint, its foremost objective, grounded in the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, must remain the safeguarding of national independence, with peace, prosperity and security as its dividends. This positioning makes Nepal’s relations with India and China simultaneously distinct and inherently bridging.

Reformed electoral arrangements—balancing inclusivity with governability—can mitigate these risks. A broader and more stable mandate enables continuity, allowing foreign policy to reflect enduring national consensus rather than the preferences of transient governments.

Yet, representativeness alone is insufficient. Without enforceable accountability, even well-designed systems risk drifting toward elite capture. The second pillar is therefore indispensable.

An enforceable mechanism of public accountability ensures that state actions are subject to scrutiny, transparency and consequences. Time-bound oversight and institutional checks create a system in which commitments are not only made but upheld. In foreign policy, this translates directly into credibility: agreements are honoured, positions remain consistent and perceived deviations are explainable.

Together, these two pillars—electoral reform and enforceable accountability—produce policy consistency and credibility, enabling more coherent and sovereign external behaviour. This linkage remains the missing bridge in Nepal’s governance and foreign policy discourse.

External actors assess credibility not in abstraction, but in a state’s ability to sustain commitments across political cycles. Where policies shift with each coalition or lack institutional backing, reliability erodes. Conversely, stable mandates combined with institutional discipline enable even smaller states to command respect internationally.

For Nepal, this connection is especially critical. Its foreign policy tradition—balance, non-alignment and sovereign equality—depends on consistent execution. Incoherent signalling in economic agreements, infrastructure cooperation, or diplomatic positioning risks eroding trust and inviting external pressure.

Strengthening representativeness and accountability can shift Nepal’s posture from reactive balancing to proactive, credible engagement. A government backed by a stable mandate and disciplined by accountability is better positioned to negotiate, commit and deliver. It can engage both India and China with clarity, minimising rhetorically charged ambiguity rooted in domestic instability.

Credibility duly enhances strategic autonomy. A state perceived as reliable gains greater room to manoeuvre: partnerships deepen, negotiations stabilise, and national interests are better protected. In this sense, credibility is not merely reputational but strategic capital.

The urgency of reform is clear. In a complex geopolitical environment, states are judged as much by consistency as by capability. Nepal’s comparative advantage lies in its potential to act as a predictable and principled actor—an advantage that must be built through deliberate institutional design.

The path forward is straightforward. Electoral reform must reduce fragmentation while preserving inclusivity, and accountability mechanisms must move from formal provisions to effective enforcement. Together, they can align domestic legitimacy with external credibility.

Ultimately, foreign policy reflects the state of internal order. Representative institutions articulate national will, while accountability ensures its faithful execution. When these function in tandem, the state acquires the capacity to act with coherence and credibility beyond its borders.

For Nepal, building this bridge between domestic governance and external behaviour is not merely conceptual. It is a strategic imperative.

Prithvi Narayan Shah, the founder of today’s Nepal, famously described the country as a ‘yam between two boulders.’ In his Dibya Upadesh (Divine Counsel), he offers enduring guidance for safeguarding the state’s security and well-being. He cautions against both the suffering of the people (nimukha praja) and the excesses of courtiers (corrupt bhardar). He stresses, “Do not oppress the exploited people. If the people suffer, the state will not endure. Keep the courtiers under discipline; otherwise, they will devour the state.”

The king clearly prioritises the welfare of the people, recognising that state stability rests on their well-being. At the same time, he warns that elites close to power, if left unchecked, can become self-serving and dangerous, ultimately undermining the state. His counsel distils a core principle of statecraft: Protect the people and discipline the elite.