The Gen-Z movement of September 2025 emerged largely because Nepal's major political parties had drifted away from the spirit of the Constitution and the concerns of ordinary citizens, becoming consumed instead by power politics. Yet even after facing public anger and electoral rejection, many political leaders appear to have learned little from that experience. Having lost the political strength to alter the balance of power at the federal level, leaders of the major parties have shifted their attention to provincial governments. Instead of allowing provincial politics to evolve independently, they continue to engineer changes in provincial coalitions from Kathmandu, creating yet another cycle of instability. This is not merely a political problem—it is a direct threat to the success of Nepal's federal system. Since the Constitution came into force, provincial governments have rarely been allowed to function on their own terms. Political equations formed at the federal level have routinely dictated the rise and fall of governments in the provinces. Whether in Sudurpaschim, Karnali, Bagmati, Madhesh or elsewhere, provincial administrations have become vulnerable to the ambitions and calculations of central party leaders rather than accountable to their own elected assemblies. The latest developments illustrate the problem. Coalition partners are abandoning governments, no-confidence motions are being registered, ministers are resigning, and fresh alliances are being negotiated—not because provincial priorities have fundamentally changed, but because political interests at the centre have shifted. Such practices reduce provincial governments to extensions of Kathmandu's power struggles rather than autonomous institutions envisioned by the Constitution.
Windstorm with rainfall likely today
This persistent interference undermines one of the core principles of federalism: the ability of provinces to exercise meaningful political autonomy. Provincial governments cannot mature into effective democratic institutions if their survival depends less on the confidence of provincial assemblies than on decisions taken by party headquarters. The growing public frustration with federalism should therefore not be blamed solely on the constitutional structure. Much of the disappointment stems from the behaviour of political parties themselves. When provincial governments are repeatedly destabilized for partisan advantage, people naturally begin to question the value of the federal system. The fault lies not with federalism, but with those who refuse to practice it in good faith. If central leaders continue to determine when provincial governments are formed or dissolved, the very purpose of provincial assemblies will be diminished. It is no surprise that voices questioning the relevance of provincial governments have become louder. Those advocating the rollback of federalism are finding ammunition in the irresponsible conduct of the very parties that once championed it.
Federalism can succeed only if political leaders respect both its letter and its spirit. Provinces must be allowed to build coalitions based on their own political realities and public mandates, not on directives issued from Kathmandu. Parliamentary norms should prevail: governments should rise or fall through legitimate processes within provincial assemblies, not through remote control by central party leaders. Political stability is essential for provinces to deliver development, strengthen governance and build public confidence in the federal system. Constant changes in government waste administrative energy, delay policy implementation and weaken democratic accountability. Nepal's federal experiment is still evolving. Weakening provincial governments through endless political maneuvering risks weakening federalism itself. The country does not need another cycle of instability; it needs political maturity. If today's leaders genuinely wish to safeguard the Constitution they helped write, they must stop treating provinces as bargaining chips in national power games. Federalism will endure not simply because it is written into the Constitution, but because political leaders choose to uphold its democratic principles in both word and deed.
