The Ongoing Nepalese Constitutional and Political Crisis: Is There a Way Out?

Dimitrios Parashu

Dimitrios Parashu is Associate Professor (Privatdozent) at the Faculty of Law of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz University Hannover. 

I. Introduction

The year 2025 has brought grave unrest to Nepal and heavily challenged its contemporary republican constitutional and political system, which was established in 2008, less than 20 years ago. Major anti-corruption protests broke out recently in the capital city of Kathmandu and elsewhere. People (not necessarily just including the so-called GenZ, but those mainly sparked through a governmental ban on social media) have clashed with the country's police violently, because they appear to be fed up with Nepal's ongoing political instability, combined with the serious problem of steadily growing poverty among its population. This is, of course, a story well-known in other parts of the world as well.

Are there deeper reasons behind these clashes, and are there possible solutions to overcome the current situation? The present contribution will add to the discussion, commencing with contextual historical information, and showing that reasons for the unrest can be found in the present Nepal Constitution.

II. Nepal Monarchy Background and Republican Developments

The Shah dynasty, which dates back to the 16th century CE, had ruled unified Nepal as its monarchs from 1769 until 2008. Under this framework, its population, which consists of roughly 30% Khas as well as several smaller groups (many of them indigenous ones, with their respective and all too different languages), was united. For large portions of its modern history, and especially after World War II, Nepal was ruled through the panchayat system: local, mainly aristocratic structures loyal to the monarch, with no active political parties permitted. The exception came in the late 1950s as a product of the 1959 Constitution, following which the Congress Party came to power briefly. The 1959 Constitution was replaced by the 1962 Constitution, which returned to the status quo ante.

In 1990, after serious clashes between those parts of the Nepal population aiming at a more democratic system and the troops loyal to the status quo, the country became a constitutional monarchy, ending the dynasty's and the King's indicated absolute powers (but making him quite popular this way, as a mere institution of Nepalese national consolidation). Notably and in the very same context, Art. 27 (3) of the Nepalese Constitution of 1990 foresaw for

            "His Majesty (...) to preserve and protect this Constitution by keeping in view the best                  interests and welfare of the people of Nepal".

Through this, the Constitution actually awarded King Birendra the possibility of guaranteeing stability ex officio, but within the framework of a constitutional monarchy based on Western standards. Consequently, a multi-party system was established for good: In May 1991, a general election gave the centre-left Congress Party a majority over the Communists. But not everybody was on board with such a constitutional transition: in 1996, an almost-10-year civil war broke out between rebels and government troops, which became a source of unrest for Nepalese society, and leaving its mark on all the following political developments there.

In 2001, amid a horrible family tragedy, the popular King Birendra was killed alongside many of his family members. His brother Gyanendra ascended to the throne, of which he had been in charge already as a child (his first office term being naturally a short one for a three year old boy, namely from 1950 to 1951). This marked a return to a more conservative and authoritarian approach to his constitutional duties. But this was not the 1950s anymore: times had changed, and this development led ultimately to the Nepalese monarchy being abolished in 2008.

III. Current Constitution

An Interim Constitution had been installed in 2007, which foresaw the need for a Constituent Assembly to create a new, more modern Constitution (which is the basis for the current Federal Democratic Republic). The modern Constitution has been in effect only since 2015. It includes a respectable and quite wide catalogue of Fundamental Rights (Art. 16 et seqq.). It also establishes the primacy of the Federal State  "(...) to build a civilized and egalitarian society by ending all forms of discrimination, oppression and injustice based on religion, culture, cultural practices, customs, traditional practices, or on any other grounds" (Art. 50 (2)).

However, the current reality is far from this, and unfortunately, the issue of growing poverty is not seen as being appropriately addressed in reality, adding further to the ongoing clashes.

It is certainly progress that the Constitution of Nepal emphasizes the three levels of state structure as the "federal, (the) provincial and (the) local" (Art. 56 (1)). Yet, a central unresolved issue continues to be the internal boundaries of the states of which the Federal Republic consists. These ethnical borderlines still remain unclear, while not always mirroring the Nepalese diversity, particularly the distribution of various indigenous groups living there (cf. e.g. "electoral constituencies", as mentioned in Art. 176 (2)). This issue should have been addressed more comprehensively to avoid possible local unrest, for instance, by actively including the population groups involved in drawing the aforementioned boundaries.  

Government stability is another issue to address. Art. 74 et seqq. are quite comprehensive in terms of their content. They even include very detailed provisions regarding the formation of government. Despite the general elections giving the Communists (and smaller parties as their partners) governmental power both in 2017 and 2022, they often lacked the desired stability, a prominent feature of which was the frequent changing of Prime  Ministers. As a result of the aforementioned recent protests, KP Sharma Oli resigned as Prime Minister in September 2025, a central reason behind which was the failure to deliver on the promise to create new jobs when accepting the Premiership for the second time.

It presently remains quite unclear what will happen next. After all, no less than 13 consecutive governments have been in charge since 2008 in Nepal, indicating grave political instability. Oli's term was the 14th, with the most recent development being Shushila Karki’s appointment as Prime Minister. Nepal's former chief justice shall lead the country to early parliamentary elections in March 2026.

IV. Could there be a Solution?

The puzzle of ongoing public unrest and the obviously inefficient, seemingly desperate government formations of (de facto) short-term cabinets is quite a delicate and difficult one. The practical application of the 2015 Constitution has not led to the desired results of long-term stability. Of course, this could be achieved by more integrated cooperation (especially now, in terms of overcoming the crisis) between political parties forming the respective Nepal government. As Lawoti pointed out, "a liberal democratic framework", combined with the possible cooperation of "a constitutional monarchy and the Maoist who shuns violence" might be the solution to "promote the empowerment and inclusion of marginalized sociocultural groups" of the population, and hence to help Nepal to overcome its current crisis.

Indeed, under present circumstances, a creative cooperation and mutual understanding of political parties, within a unifying framework of a monarch (a person beyond criticism!), could be a solution. Such an approach would obviously call for a necessary revision or even change of the 2015 Constitution (while retaining its aforementioned positive parts) - but without the delays which occurred before it came into effect. 

Dimitrios Parashu is Associate Professor (Privatdozent) at the Faculty of Law of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz University Hannover. 

Suggested Citation: Dimitrios Parashu, ‘The Ongoing Nepalese Constitutional and Political Crisis: Is There a Way Out?’ IACL-AIDC Blog (23 September 2025) The Ongoing Nepalese Constitutional and Political Crisis: Is There a Way Out? — IACL-IADC Blog.