On July 4, Prime Minister Balendra Shah’s government completed its first 100 days in office. The first 100 days of any government hold symbolic significance in democratic politics. While no administration can deliver transformative results in such a short time, these early months reveal its governing priorities, policy direction and commitment to constitutional and institutional reform. They show whether promises made during elections are beginning to translate into concrete action and provide an early indication of the government’s broader governing philosophy.

Federalism promise

One useful benchmark for evaluating the government’s performance is Shah’s public commitment during the election campaign. In his first public address in Janakpur, he argued that citizens should no longer be compelled to travel to Kathmandu to seek authority, emphasising that provincial institutions should be strengthened to bring governance closer to the people. That message resonated strongly because it reflected one of the central objectives of the Constitution: decentralising state authority and empowering provincial and local levels. The commitment was not merely about improving administrative efficiency; it was about deepening and consolidating federalism. The government’s first 100 days, therefore, raise an important question: Has it begun translating that commitment into meaningful action?

Before examining the government’s performance, it is important to consider another development that shaped public debate on federalism a few days ago. At the first general convention of the governing Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), held in Bharatpur, Chitwan, Deputy Chairperson and Finance Minister Swarnim Wagle presented an economic policy document proposing a major restructuring of Nepal’s federal system, including the abolition of Provincial Assemblies. The proposal immediately generated widespread political debate because it appeared to challenge one of the fundamental pillars of constitutional order.

The debate became more complicated when party Chairperson Rabi Lamichhane presented a separate policy document advocating the reform and strengthening of provincial institutions rather than their abolition. The presentation of two seemingly contradictory proposals at the party’s highest policy forum created uncertainty about the RSP’s actual position on federalism. During my discussion with the party’s General Secretary, Bipin Acharya, he clarified that the Chairperson’s proposal reflects the party’s official position and that the recommendation to abolish Provincial Assemblies should not be interpreted as official party policy. Nevertheless, the presentation of two divergent policy proposals at the party’s own general convention created unnecessary confusion over one of the country’s most fundamental constitutional issues.

The controversy also appeared inconsistent with the prime minister’s earlier commitment in Janakpur to strengthen provincial institutions. Leaders of Madhesh-based parties and other advocates of federalism argued that abolishing Provincial Assemblies would undermine the spirit of the Constitution and disregard the decades-long struggle for inclusion, identity and power-sharing that ultimately led Nepal to embrace federalism. Whether or not the proposal reflected official government policy, it reopened a constitutional debate that many believed had been settled with the promulgation of the 2015 Constitution.

Federalism in Nepal should not be viewed merely as an administrative arrangement or a means of reducing the number of government institutions. It is a constitutional framework designed to accommodate the country’s unique linguistic, ethnic, cultural, geographical and regional diversity while promoting inclusion, self and shared rule and balanced development across the country. Provincial governments were established to decentralise decision-making, strengthen democratic accountability, foster regional development and reduce the excessive concentration of political and administrative power in Kathmandu. Any proposal to abolish or fundamentally restructure these institutions, therefore, requires rigorous constitutional, political, administrative and fiscal analysis, supported by broad political consensus.

The 100-day report

Against this broader political backdrop, the government’s first 100-day report presents a mixed picture. Several initiatives deserve recognition. The expansion of digital public services, efforts to improve governance through technology and attempts to simplify administrative procedures represent meaningful reforms. The integration of public services through digital platforms such as the Citizen App, online citizenship recommendations, integrated land information systems and grievance management mechanisms reflects a genuine effort to modernise public administration and reduce citizen burdens.

Similarly, the introduction of service quality standards for all local governments is a welcome initiative with the potential to improve accountability and establish minimum benchmarks for local service delivery. Likewise, the gradual transfer of selected land administration services to local governments marks an important step towards bringing government closer to citizens, although broader land governance challenges remain unresolved.

The government has also initiated institutional rationalisation by abolishing 31 public bodies, merging six, transferring six to other authorities, and restructuring 18 organisations. In addition, the decision to reduce the number of federal ministries from 22 to 18 signals an intention to create a leaner, more efficient and more streamlined federal government.

The government has taken initial steps to reduce political interference in the civil service. It has also addressed the widespread practice of local governments being led by acting Chief Administrative Officers by deploying core and full officials to nearly all local levels. These measures are likely to strengthen administrative stability, improve accountability and enhance service delivery at the local level.

These achievements, however, should not obscure a more fundamental reality. Administrative modernisation and governance reform, while commendable, are not synonymous with the implementation of federalism. The true test of federal transition lies not merely in digitising public services or restructuring federal ministries, but in strengthening provincial institutions, clarifying constitutional responsibilities, deepening fiscal federalism, building effective intergovernmental relations and completing the institutional reforms envisioned by the Constitution.

Most notably, provincial structures are largely absent from the government’s 34-page progress report, despite being one of the Constitution’s three co-equal tiers of governance. Their near absence suggests that they remain peripheral to the government’s governance agenda rather than being treated as indispensable partners in implementing the federal system. This omission raises important questions about the government’s commitment to constitutional federalism.

Several key reforms remain stalled. There has been no meaningful progress on the long-awaited Federal Civil Service Bill, which is essential for creating a professional civil service capable of serving all three levels of government. Likewise, the School Education Bill, one of the Constitution’s most important pending laws, remains unresolved, leaving education governance in constitutional uncertainty. Nor has the government presented a clear roadmap for restructuring the police in accordance with the Constitution, depriving provincial governments of a key institution needed to exercise their constitutional responsibilities.

Fiscal federalism remains one of the weakest aspects of implementation. Fiscal transfers to provinces and local governments have declined in recent years, while progress has been limited in strengthening revenue sharing, fiscal equalisation, and the fiscal autonomy of subnational governments. The government’s report also pays little attention to strengthening intergovernmental relations, revising the unbundling of powers, building provincial institutional capacity, or preparing a clear roadmap for completing the federal transition.

If the government is genuinely committed to realising the Constitution’s federal vision, these priorities require urgent attention. It must expedite the Federal Civil Service Bill, strengthen fiscal federalism, operationalise provincial policing, improve intergovernmental relations and complete the legal and institutional reforms necessary to clarify the distribution of powers among the three tiers of government.

The next phase of the government must demonstrate a strong commitment to implementing federalism. Nepal’s constitutional promise will be fulfilled only when provincial and local levels are genuinely empowered as equal partners in governance.