The ripples of Nepal’s political instability are far-reaching, extending beyond its border. Soon after a government falls and a new prime minister assumes office, provincial leaders are toppled, senior bureaucrats are transferred, and ministers are changed—and so are the ambassadors. Little do our leaders seem to care how detrimental the coming and going of envoys is for the country’s image. The new coalition government headed by KP Oli has recently finalised the names of 19 envoys to serve in different capitals. The ambassadors appointed by the previous coalition under Pushpa Kamal Dahal were recalled.

Only time will tell the fate of the new appointees, as we cannot say how long the incumbent government will last. Recalling envoys en masse every time there is a government change is not conducive for a country like Nepal that is having to maintain an increasingly difficult balance between major powers like India, China and the US. Ambassadors, when appointed to a new place, need some time to familiarise themselves with their new environment. But if they are replaced no sooner than they are appointed, the very purpose of diplomacy is lost.

Half of Nepal’s ambassadors are political appointees and the rest are career diplomats. The political appointments in particular are problematic. Krishna Prasad Oli, a close associate of the prime minister, has been picked as the ambassador to China. (His main coalition partner, Sher Bahadur Deuba, the Nepali Congress chief, also undoubtedly got to have his say in other picks.) Oli’s envoys are predominantly so-called upper-caste men, with only four women and not a single Dalit ambassador nominee.

There also seems to be little forethought on when and when not to recall ambassadors. Take the case of Shankar Sharma, Nepal’s former ambassador to India. Appointed by Deuba in March 2022 when he was in a coalition with Dahal, Sharma was recalled when Dahal allied with Oli to form a new government back in March this year. He has been reappointed after coming to power of the UML-Congress coalition. This kind of immature diplomacy with a country as important as India will do great harm to Nepal’s interests.

Experts have suggested increasing the proportion of career diplomats as ambassadors from the current 50 percent to 80 or 90 percent. That will apparently decrease political meddling in the process. Perhaps an even better idea is to pick ambassadors, at least to important capitals like New Delhi, Beijing and Washington DC, on the basis of broad political understanding. After all, even if there is a change in government, a combination of the same two or three parties will come to power. If that is the case, why not make these picks judiciously through political consultations and let the ambassadors work for their full four-year term? That would also be in keeping with our national interest.

One thing that can be done to ensure that the right people are picked is to make the nominees undergo a rigorous parliamentary vetting process. Up until now, such hearings for ambassador picks have been no more than rituals. But as we recently saw in the case of Krishna Man Pradhan, someone charged with sexual exploitation who was nominated as election commissioner, the parliamentary hearing process can be quite effective in keeping out the bad eggs. Again, in these testing times around the world for international relations and diplomacy, Nepal cannot afford to continue with its current ad hoc approach.