The National Assembly, provincial governments, provincial assemblies, and the proportional representation system have increasingly become platforms for political parties to distribute positions among their leaders and cadres. They are often criticized as mechanisms used to sustain party loyalists and enable corruption and exploitation of state resources. If these institutions continue in their current form, it will be difficult for the country to move forward. For a country like Nepal, a central cabinet of around ten ministers, a parliament of no more than one hundred members, and local governments would be sufficient.

Nepal’s population is less than thirty million, and nearly one-third of that—around ten million people—live abroad. The number of active voters in the country is less than eleven million. In our electoral system, candidates can win simply by receiving the highest number of votes among those cast, even without securing a true majority of the electorate. This shows how flawed our electoral and governance system is. The problems with the proportional representation system and its implementation are already visible. Can the country really sustain these “white elephants”? The new parliament should seriously debate and decide on this matter.

Overall, the current constitution is seen by some critics as deeply flawed, arguing that it was shaped primarily by decisions of major leaders such as K.P. Sharma Oli, Sher Bahadur Deuba, and Pushpa Kamal Dahal “Prachanda,” while others were expected merely to applaud. Even if RSP gains a two-thirds majority, these institutions may still become major structural obstacles. To move the country forward, we must not simply follow other nations’ models but instead design a system that reflects Nepal’s own realities through a new national understanding.

Nepal formally adopted a federal democratic republican system after promulgating a new constitution in 2015. This brought major structural changes to the state. A three-tier system of government was established, consisting of the federal government, seven provincial governments, and local governments. Federal parliament, provincial assemblies, the National Assembly, proportional representation, and inclusive quotas were introduced. The main objective of these reforms was to decentralize power, ensure inclusive representation, and strengthen democratic governance.

However, nearly a decade after the constitution was implemented, a serious question is being raised: Is this structure truly suited to the country’s needs, or has it become an expensive mechanism for managing political party leaders and cadres?

Since the federal system was introduced, Nepal’s state structure has expanded significantly. The House of Representatives has 275 members. The National Assembly, the upper chamber, has 59 members. The seven provincial assemblies together include more than 550 lawmakers. In addition, there are thousands of elected representatives across 753 local governments. Running all these institutions requires billions of rupees annually. For a country with limited economic resources, the long-term sustainability of such a structure is increasingly being questioned. Many analysts argue that while it may have political justification, economically it is extremely costly for a small economy like Nepal.

Nepal’s total population is estimated to be around thirty million, but the number of people actually residing in the country is much smaller. Around ten million Nepalis live abroad for employment or residence. The number of active voters within the country is roughly eleven million. Yet despite this, the size of parliament and the overall political structure remains very large. Moreover, due to the nature of the electoral system, many representatives reach parliament not purely through direct public mandate but through political alliances and party-controlled lists.

Nepal’s constitution introduced a proportional representation system in parliament to ensure representation for historically marginalized groups such as women, Dalits, Indigenous nationalities, Madhesis, Tharus, Muslims, and others. In theory, this system forms an important foundation for inclusive democracy. In practice, however, it has faced significant criticism. Many analysts argue that proportional representation lists are controlled by party leadership rather than by voters. Party leaders often prioritize individuals close to them or politically influential figures. Because citizens cannot directly choose these representatives, accountability to the public is often weak. For this reason, some critics describe it as a “quota system used by party leadership to manage political cadres.”

The National Assembly was created as the upper house of the federal parliament. Of its 59 members, 56 are elected through provincial electoral colleges and three are nominated by the president. Its intended role is to ensure stability and deeper deliberation in the law-making process. However, critics question whether a bicameral parliament is necessary for a country as small as Nepal. Some analysts argue that in practice the National Assembly often appears largely ceremonial in the legislative process.

The biggest debate surrounding federalism concerns provincial governments. Nepal currently has seven provincial governments and seven provincial assemblies, employing hundreds of ministers, lawmakers, and officials. The purpose of these provincial structures was to decentralize power and accelerate local development. In practice, however, many problems have emerged. Provincial authority remains unclear, conflicts often arise between the federal and provincial governments, financial resources are limited, and most provinces remain heavily dependent on federal funding. As a result, critics question whether the provincial structure is truly effective or merely a system for creating political positions.

Some critics of the current structure have proposed alternative models. According to them, a country with a small economy like Nepal does not need such a large political structure. They argue that a limited central cabinet, a parliament of around one hundred members, and strong local governments could be sufficient. Such a model could reduce government spending, accelerate decision-making, and improve administrative efficiency. Examples of smaller parliaments in other countries are often cited. However, an important question remains: would such a system still ensure diversity and inclusive representation?

Although Nepal’s current constitution was adopted through agreement among major political parties, critics argue that it was more the result of a political compromise than a long-term national consensus. Key decisions were made by top leaders of major parties, including Sher Bahadur Deuba of the Nepali Congress, K.P. Sharma Oli of the UML, and Pushpa Kamal Dahal “Prachanda” of the Maoist Centre. Critics say that broader public opinion was not adequately incorporated during the drafting process and that the structure largely reflected the balance of power among political parties.

New political forces are now emerging in Nepal. In particular, parties such as the Rastriya Swatantra Party have begun questioning the existing political structure. However, even if a new party secures a two-thirds parliamentary majority in the future, changing the federal structure may not be easy. Constitutional amendments would be required, and dismantling many institutions would demand broad political consensus. For this reason, some analysts believe that these institutions could become “bones stuck in the throat” for any reform-oriented government.

Nepal’s political debate has now reached an important turning point. Many analysts believe that Nepal should not simply imitate models from other countries when designing its political system. Instead, it must consider its own social, economic, and geographical realities. Serious national debate is needed on federalism, proportional representation, parliamentary structure, and provincial governments.

Nepal’s current political structure was created with the principles of democracy, inclusiveness, and federalism in mind. Yet questions remain about its economic burden, effectiveness, and potential misuse for political interests. If the perception grows that the system is excessively costly and inefficient, calls for constitutional and structural reform may intensify in the future. To build a stable, capable, and accountable state, Nepal’s political parties, parliament, and civil society must engage in open and serious dialogue to seek long-term solutions.

• Editor in Chief – Nepalmother.com