Nepal's constitution, promulgated on 20 September 2015, formally completed the transition from a Hindu kingdom to a secular federal republic that had begun with the 2006 People's Movement and the abolition of the monarchy in 2008. Seven provinces, a parliamentary system and a charter of rights were intended to bring government closer to citizens and prevent a return to concentrated power.

This explainer, based on published analysis and reporting, assesses where that constitutional order has delivered and where it strains. Frequent government changes, disputes between federal, provincial and local levels, and public frustration that erupted in September 2025 raise a central question: are Nepal's problems caused by the constitution's design, by the politics practised within it, or by both?

What the 2015 Constitution Changed

The constitution divided Nepal into seven provinces and 753 local governments, created a bicameral federal parliament, and recognised a wide range of civil, political and social rights. For communities historically excluded from Kathmandu, federalism promised budgets, assemblies and officials who spoke local languages and understood local priorities, a significant departure from the unitary state that had governed for centuries.

In its first decade, the system held regular elections, seated provincial assemblies and normalised the idea that power is shared. Women and marginalised groups gained representation through constitutional quotas, even if senior leadership remained less diverse. Those achievements are sometimes overlooked in crisis coverage, but they form the institutional baseline against which current dissatisfaction should be measured.

Federalism in Practice

Implementing federalism proved harder than writing it. Laws on civil service, policing and education were delayed, leaving provinces uncertain about staff and authority. Revenue is still collected largely at the centre, while provinces and municipalities carry public expectations for roads, health and schools. Mayors and chief ministers in published interviews have complained that they are blamed for services they do not fully control.

Coordination problems also appear during disasters and economic shocks, when three tiers of government must act together. Supporters of federalism argue that these are transitional problems that better laws and fiscal transfers can fix. Critics counter that duplication and competition waste scarce resources. The debate is important because public trust in the constitution itself can fall when citizens experience federalism mainly as confusion.

A constitution can distribute power on paper; only practice turns that distribution into trust.

Political Instability Within the Rules

Nepal has seen repeated changes of prime minister and coalition since 2015, often driven by party splits and bargaining rather than by elections. The constitution's provisions on government formation, intended to ensure stability, have been tested by dissolutions of parliament and court interventions. Each episode has prompted argument about whether leaders respect the spirit of the document even when they follow its letter.

The crisis of September 2025, when protests left at least 76 dead, parliament was torched, Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli resigned and former chief justice Sushila Karki became interim prime minister on 12 September, was an extra-constitutional shock handled through a political settlement aimed at fresh elections. The election on 5 March 2026 and the formation of a government under Balendra Shah on 27 March restored an elected order, but also underlined how fragile public consent had become.

Rights, Identity and Contested Questions

The constitution declares Nepal secular while protecting religion and culture, defines citizenship in ways that women's rights groups have criticised as unequal, and recognises many languages and identities without fully resolving how provincial boundaries should reflect them. Madhesi, Tharu and Janajati movements have at different times demanded amendments, arguing that the 2015 settlement was adopted too quickly after an earthquake and without sufficient consensus.

Amendment is a normal feature of constitutional life, not an admission of failure. The challenge is distinguishing changes that broaden inclusion from changes driven by short-term coalition arithmetic. Legal scholars cited in published analysis stress that a transparent, participatory amendment process matters as much as its outcome, because legitimacy in a diverse republic depends on citizens seeing their concerns heard even when they do not prevail.

Opportunities for Renewal

A large parliamentary majority after the 2026 election creates an unusual opportunity to complete federal laws, clarify fiscal arrangements and strengthen independent institutions such as the judiciary, election commission and anti-corruption bodies. It also creates a risk: majorities can amend rules to entrench themselves if checks are weak. Civil society and opposition parties, though reduced, retain a role in testing government claims.

Nepal's constitutional republic has survived a decade that included a pandemic, economic pressure and mass protest. Its future will depend less on perfect text than on practice: leaders who accept limits, provinces that deliver visible services, and citizens who continue to use elections and courts rather than violence to settle disputes. On that measure, the constitution remains both an achievement and an unfinished project.