Universities around the world are undergoing significant governance transformation, with institutional autonomy, state involvement, academic freedom, funding, and public accountability now at the center of higher education policy debates. Nepal is no exception, as these issues feature prominently in recent policy and academic arenas. One of the headline-making reform proposals seeks to amend the law governing universities, particularly the provision designating the Prime Minister as Chancellor. It has sparked intense debate among policymakers, academics, and the wider public. Education Minister Mahabir Pun has advocated removing the Prime Minister from the chancellorship and establishing a governing board or council as part of broader governance reform. It has been reported that an expert committee, chaired by the University Grants Commission (UGC) head, has been tasked with preparing a report incorporating these recommendations, which, as Pun noted at a Nepal Higher Education Foundation (NHEF) meeting, originated in discussions with university vice-chancellors.
Echoing Pun, at the 31st Convocation of Kathmandu University on 10 December 2025, Prime Minister Sushila Karki stated that the government is working to ensure Chancellors are qualified academic professionals rather than political figures. She noted that the provision allowing the Prime Minister to appoint vice-chancellors also needs revision, and consultations are underway to amend the Act. Karki expressed confidence that these changes would help end the long-standing politicization of higher education.
Nepal’s higher education system, particularly the governance of Tribhuvan University, remains closely linked to the country’s political history, fiscal dependence on the state, shifting developmental priorities, and rising public expectations. These factors complicate efforts to adopt international governance models without careful contextual adaptation. Evaluating whether the proposed reforms align with global trendsor risk creating new forms of institutional imbalancerequires examining the historical evolution of state–university relations, governance models in different regions. It also requires attention to the global shift toward corporate-style university governance, and the persistent challenges facing Nepal’s universities after decades of politicization and underperformance.
Global traditions of university governance
Globally, university governance has evolved along a broad continuum, from early collegial systems led largely by faculties and academic senates, to periods of strong state-controlled governance in many countries, and more recently toward autonomous or corporate-style models with stronger executive leadership. While the collegial model, common among Europe’s universities, safeguarded academic freedom and scholarly voice, whereas state-controlled systems emphasized national priorities but often constrained institutional flexibility. Contemporary reforms increasingly aim for balance, combining institutional autonomy with mechanisms for public accountability and responsiveness to economic and technological change.
Countries such as the United States and Japan developed governance systems in which universities are overseen by boards or councils responsible for appointing presidents, ensuring financial oversight, and setting strategic direction. In the United States, these boards often include a mix of elected, appointed, and independent members. Japanese universities are governed through a corporatized model introduced in 2004, where national universities became independent legal entities (National University Corporations) with boards and presidents, but the state still exercises strong oversight, especially in finance and policy direction. Even in systems designed to safeguard university autonomy, government meddling can occur through funding pressures, regulatory mandates, or politically motivated board appointments.
Several Asian countries such as China, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Nepal, and Myanmar continue to rely on state dominant governance models, where education ministries exercise extensive oversight, often justified as necessary to align universities with national development plans. Over the past few decades, a new global pattern has emerged: the rise of the ‘presidentialized’ or ‘corporate’ model. Large public universities increasingly resemble autonomous public corporations led by powerful executive heads who function as chief executive officers, responsible for strategy, financial sustainability, labor market responsiveness, and research expansion. Variants of this model are evident in Singapore, South Korea, Australia, and parts of Europe following managerial reforms in the early 2000s.
Nepal’s shift toward a state-facilitated corporate model
Raising awareness about spinal cord injury
Nepal’s current reform proposal, championed by Education Minister Mahabir Pun, seeks to align broadly with the global shift toward corporate-style governance. The proposed change aims to move the system away from its historically state-controlled character toward a state-facilitated model in which universities enjoy more managerial autonomy, professional leadership structures, and the agility expected of modern academic institutions. Within this framing, removing the Prime Minister as Chancellor is presented as a step toward depoliticization, efficiency, and international conformity.
However, Nepal’s context differs markedly from countries that have successfully adopted corporate governance structures. Public universities remain financially dependent on the state, serve both developmental and civic functions, and operate in an ecosystem where political parties exert influence through student unions, faculty groups, and partisan appointment processes at every level. These realities require a more nuanced assessment of what kind of governance model is appropriate, sustainable, and beneficial for Nepal’s long-term goals.
Arguments supporting the removal of the Prime Minister as Chancellor
Supporters of the reform argue that political interference is the root cause of dysfunction in Nepal’s universities and that having the Prime Minister at the top symbolically reinforces partisan influence. For several decades, universities have struggled with unstable leadership, factional disputes, and short-lived policy agendas. As the largest university and principal provider of higher education, Tribhuwan University suffers the most under this arrangement – and so has the nation. Reform advocates contend that political leadership at the apex legitimizes partisan competition and that even symbolic positions can become conduits for informal influence.
In this view, removing the Prime Minister would signal that universities are academic rather than political spaces, helping shift institutional culture and reducing the tendency to interpret appointments and decisions through partisan lenses. Supporters also note that in most mature higher education systems, heads of government do not hold executive or ceremonial university positions. They further point out that the Prime Minister’s demanding responsibilities make it impossible to devote adequate attention to university governance. Indeed, as Minister Pun observed, even the Prime Minister may not always know how many chancellorships he or she holds.
Arguments against removing the Prime Minister as Chancellor
Critics caution that such reforms may not properly diagnose the root causes of politicization and overestimate the impact of removing what is supposed to be a symbolic figure. The state-university relationship in Nepal is structural, not incidental. Universities are tasked with human capital development, preparing graduates to contribute to national development and global competitiveness. They train key professionals, conduct public-interest research, operate essential services like teaching hospitals, and serve as spaces for civic formation and cultural preservation. Given these roles, governments worldwide maintain formal links with major universities.
Examples from the UK, India, and Malaysia show that monarchs, presidents, or sultans often hold ceremonial university positions without undermining autonomy. The issue is not the symbolic role but how governance functions beneath it. Nepal’s politicization persists because political parties dominate student unions, faculty groups, administrative appointments, and decision-making structures. Removing the Prime Minister does not dismantle these networks.
Critics also note that the Chancellor’s position has historically provided stability, coherence, and a link to national priorities, particularly amid frequent ministerial changes, unstable coalitions, and limited bureaucratic continuity. Nepal’s universities remain financially and structurally dependent on the state. Cutting symbolic ties risks weakening coordination mechanisms essential for aligning universities with development goals. Autonomy must be balanced with responsibility, and state engagement should shift from control to guidance rather than disappear.
While recent Prime Ministers serving as Chancellors have influenced university governance, some argue this arrangement has contributed to politicization and should be dismantled. Yet the office of the Prime Minister represents the government as an institution, not just an individual, and future leaders may actively champion higher education development without meddling in autonomy. Removing the role entirely, especially at Tribhuvan University, the oldest and largest, could sever an important link between universities and the state.
Corporate-style governance works best where universities are financially autonomous, professionally managed, and politically insulated. Nepal’s universities remain state-dependent, politicized, and socially embedded, making a direct transplant risky. Reform must therefore be incremental and context-sensitive, balancing autonomy with accountability while safeguarding universities’ civic and developmental roles.
Emerging university governance model for Nepal
Building on these considerations, a credible transition to modern university governance in Nepal requires two mutually reinforcing pillars: a professionally constituted governing board or council insulated from political influence, and a CEO-style vice-chancellor or president selected through a transparent, competitive, performance-based process. These reforms are essential not only to update institutional structures but to fundamentally shift how authority, oversight, and accountability function within Nepal’s higher education system. University administration should clearly separate governance and management functions.
A governing board’s effectiveness begins with its composition. To prevent political capture, membership should be based on expertise rather than affiliation. This entails limiting political nominations, enforcing transparent appointment criteria, and reserving a majority of seats for professionals such as respected academics, representatives from industry and civil society, and experts in finance, law, or public management with no active political roles. Some countries also include elected faculty, staff, and student representatives to keep academic values central. Staggered terms, conflict-of-interest rules, and publicly disclosed selection processes further insulate the board from political cycles. A board designed this way can provide strategic direction, protect institutional autonomy, and enforce accountability without partisan influence.
Complementing this structure is a CEO-style vice-chancellor or president appointed through an open, competitive process rather than political negotiation. This executive operates under a clear performance contract with measurable benchmarks related to academic quality, research productivity, resource mobilization, and institutional development. To maintain governance integrity, the CEO-style leader is not a board member, holds no voting rights, and reports solely to the governing council. This separation ensures oversight remains independent and executive authority is exercised professionally rather than politically. The board evaluates the vice-chancellor’s performance annually, renews or terminates the contract based on results, and provides strategic guidance.
Together, these elements form a governance model that strengthens autonomy, enhances accountability, and reduces the risks of politicized leadership that have long constrained Nepal’s universities. The challenge is not merely adopting the model in form, but institutionalizing its underlying principles of professionalism, transparency, independence, and performance so the system functions as intended. It may take several years before these reforms deliver tangible improvements in governance and institutional performance.
Toward a Higher Education Council
A more effective reform would reshape the broader relationship between the state and higher education, recognizing universities as both instruments of national development and autonomous centers of knowledge. Given the strategic importance and cost of higher education, one promising approach is establishing a high-level Higher Education Council to institutionalize this partnership. Chaired by the Prime Minister to signal national priority, the Council could include key ministries, the National Planning Commission, the University Grants Commission, industry leaders, civil society actors, and vice-chancellors.
The Council would ensure continuity during political transitions without intervening in daily university operations. Its role would focus on national policy direction, human resource planning, and long-term strategic priorities. This model mirrors successful systems in South Korea, Ireland, and Singapore, where strong state-university partnerships coexist with institutional autonomy, balancing legitimate state oversight with protection from partisan micromanagement.
Conclusion
Nepal stands at a pivotal moment in higher education reform. The focus should shift from symbolic gestures, such as removing the Prime Minister as Chancellor, toward building a comprehensive, context-sensitive governance framework. This framework rests on two mutually reinforcing pillars: professionally constituted governing boards insulated from political influence, and CEO-style vice-chancellors or presidents appointed through transparent, competitive, performance-based processes. Aligned with a National Higher Education Council to ensure state–university coordination and strategic oversight, these reforms can strengthen autonomy, enhance accountability, and professionalize leadership across the sector.
Real transformation, however, requires strengthening governance throughout the entire higher education ecosystem, from the national level down to individual universities. The challenge is institutionalizing principles of professionalism, transparency, quality assurance, funding independence, and performance so that authority and oversight function effectively, rather than creating the appearance of reform. Change will be gradual, taking several years before these structures operate as intended. Nepal’s universities need patient, incremental reform that balances autonomy with responsibility, safeguards civic and developmental roles, and positions higher education as a true engine of knowledge, innovation, and national progress.
(The author is a former professor of education at Tribhuwan University and education specialist with UNESCO.)
_20230226123652.jpg)
