Kathmandu, April 3 — Shortly after assuming office, Prime Minister Balendra Shah unveiled an ambitious 100-point action plan designed to fast-track governance reforms and deliver immediate results. This roadmap reflects the administration’s commitment to swift execution and visible impact. Following the March 5 elections, the newly formed House of Representatives convened promptly on Thursday, signaling a sense of urgency in government affairs. Addressing the House, RSP President Rabi Lamichhane emphasized that the administration intends to avoid the shortcomings of previous governments and remain focused on fulfilling its electoral promises. Echoing this federal momentum, at least one provincial administration has attempted to align with the central government’s direction. Karnali Province Chief Minister Yam Lal Kandel, representing CPN-UML, instructed ministers and top officials on March 30 to abandon outdated administrative practices. His directive came shortly after the federal government introduced its reform-focused plan on March 28. During a high-level meeting at the Office of the Chief Minister and Council of Ministers in Birendranagar, Kandel highlighted the need to improve budget utilization, refine project selection processes, and streamline procedural inefficiencies. Expressing dissatisfaction with sluggish progress, he urged officials to move beyond identifying issues and actively resolve them. He stressed that ineffective budget execution must be addressed immediately and called for a transformation in work culture, noting that public expectations demand tangible outcomes. According to Kandel, government performance should reflect efficiency and accountability rather than bureaucratic delay. On March 27, his first day in office, Prime Minister Shah convened a meeting at Singha Durbar with ministers and senior bureaucrats. During the session, he emphasized that the administrative system must operate in alignment with the government’s reform-oriented vision. The prime minister made it clear that the federal administration would adopt a new working approach and encouraged bureaucratic institutions to adapt accordingly. Several provincial governments have since issued similar directives, mirroring the federal stance on administrative reform. However, experts caution that without stronger coordination between federal and provincial authorities, these reform initiatives may struggle to achieve meaningful results. Despite Nepal adopting a federal system over a decade ago, key legislative frameworks necessary for its effective implementation remain incomplete. One significant issue is that the administrative structure targeted for reform remains largely controlled by the federal government. Provincial governments have yet to gain full autonomy over bureaucratic operations, which limits their ability to independently implement reforms. Analysts warn that overlapping authority—where both federal and provincial governments attempt to direct the same administrative bodies—could result in confusion, inefficiency, and institutional conflict. The electoral success of the RSP, which secured 182 seats in the 275-member House, reflects strong public expectations for improved governance and service delivery. With a near two-thirds majority, the party has formed a single-party government under Shah’s leadership. In contrast, provincial governments present a different political landscape. For instance, Madhesh Province is governed by a seven-party coalition led by Krishna Prasad Yadav of the Nepali Congress, while other provinces remain under the control of traditional parties like Congress and UML. Notably, the RSP did not participate in provincial elections and therefore holds no representation at that level. This divergence in political control between federal and provincial governments may lead to competing priorities. While the RSP leads at the center, traditional parties continue to dominate at the provincial level, potentially using these platforms to maintain their influence. Political observers suggest that this dynamic could create resistance to federal reforms. Analyst Chandrakishore points out that provincial leaders may prioritize party-specific agendas over national reform goals, thereby weakening coordination. He further notes that since provinces depend on federal funding and legislative support, differing political leadership across government tiers could create friction, delaying reform implementation. Similarly, Gandaki Province Chief Minister Surendra Pandey indicated that formal communication between the federal and provincial governments has yet to begin. While acknowledging that only a week has passed since the formation of the central government, he expressed expectations for an upcoming meeting between the prime minister and provincial leaders. Pandey emphasized that cooperation would not be an issue as long as it remains within established legal frameworks. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Shah has initiated outreach efforts by engaging Members of Parliament from various provinces. These discussions aim to gather insights into regional challenges, and communication channels—including WhatsApp groups—have been established to facilitate ongoing dialogue. Despite these efforts, experts argue that several structural challenges persist. These include unclear jurisdictional boundaries, incomplete federal legislation, weak coordination mechanisms, financial dependency of provinces, and an underdeveloped administrative framework. Although Nepal’s Constitution—particularly Article 232—emphasizes cooperation, coexistence, and coordination among different levels of government, practical implementation remains inconsistent. Schedule 6 of the Constitution outlines provincial powers, including responsibilities related to security, highways, and civil services. However, many of these functions still depend on federal laws, limiting effective execution. Additionally, Schedule 7 introduces concurrent powers shared between federal and provincial governments in sectors such as education, health, and natural resources. In cases of legal conflict, federal law takes precedence, which can undermine provincial authority. Minister for Federal Affairs and General Administration Pratibha Rawal acknowledged that the government is still determining how to strengthen coordination with provincial bodies. She stated that current efforts are focused on local governance, with provincial-level discussions expected to follow. Experts like Khim Lal Devkota argue that the core issue lies not within the constitutional framework but in delays caused by administrative and political actors. Key legislation—such as civil service and education laws—remains pending, hindering full implementation of federalism. Devkota maintains that with political commitment and bureaucratic cooperation, existing challenges can be addressed, allowing reforms to move forward effectively.
