By Our Reporter
The growing distrust between the Nepali Congress and the CPN UML is no longer confined to Kathmandu. It has reached the provinces, where coalition governments are beginning to unravel. The dismissal of UML ministers in Sudurpaschim and the resignation of Congress ministers in Karnali signal that the uneasy partnership between Nepal’s two largest parties is entering a more confrontational phase.
If the breakdown spreads across all seven provinces, Nepal could once again witness months of coalition bargaining, ministerial reshuffles and changing political alliances. The immediate question is who will govern. The larger question is why the two ruling parties have reached this point despite sharing power at both the federal and provincial levels.
The answer lies in a gradual collapse of political trust. The Congress and UML entered government promising stability after years of revolving coalitions. The expectation was that cooperation between the country’s two largest parties would allow governments to focus on economic recovery, governance reform and development instead of constant political bargaining.
That understanding now appears to be weakening. Disagreements over power sharing, leadership ambitions and differing political priorities have steadily widened the gap between the two partners. Provincial governments have become the first casualties because they are often treated as extensions of national politics rather than independent institutions responsible for delivering public services. The events in Sudurpaschim illustrate that reality. Removing coalition ministers is rarely about provincial policy differences. It usually reflects a political message directed at the federal leadership. The same applies to Congress ministers leaving the UML led government in Karnali. These moves are less about provincial governance than about shifting equations in Kathmandu.
This is precisely what Nepal’s federal system was meant to avoid. Federalism was introduced to bring decision making closer to citizens, allowing provinces to address local priorities without being consumed by national power struggles. Instead, provincial governments have increasingly become bargaining tools in negotiations among central leaders. That pattern has weakened public confidence in federalism itself.
The timing makes the situation even more problematic. The ruling coalition is already debating ways to reduce public spending by restructuring the state. Proposals ranging from reducing the number of lawmakers and ministers to reviewing the federal structure, and even abolishing provinces, have entered mainstream political discussion. Critics argue that provincial governments have become expensive layers of administration that duplicate federal responsibilities without delivering corresponding improvements in public services.
Supporters of federalism reject that argument, saying the problem lies in implementation rather than the system itself. Yet repeated political instability strengthens the critics’ case. Every time provincial governments collapse because of power struggles instead of policy failures, it becomes easier for opponents to question whether the provinces are serving citizens or merely providing additional positions for politicians.
The political arithmetic also suggests prolonged uncertainty. In Bagmati, Gandaki, Karnali and Sudurpaschim, Congress and the CPN can comfortably build alternative coalitions. Koshi, Madhesh and Lumbini present a different picture. Smaller regional parties are likely to become kingmakers, giving them disproportionate influence over government formation.
Such situations often produce unstable coalitions built on immediate political convenience rather than long term policy goals. That raises another concern. Frequent government changes rarely improve governance. New ministers often replace ongoing priorities with their own agendas. Bureaucratic decision making slows as officials wait for political clarity. Development projects lose momentum. Investors delay decisions because policy continuity becomes uncertain.
Citizens ultimately pay the price. Nepal’s provinces continue to face weak infrastructure, limited investment, unemployment, poor healthcare and struggling schools. These problems require stable governments capable of implementing policies over several years, not administrations constantly negotiating their own survival.
Neither Congress nor UML can escape responsibility. As the country’s two largest parties, they have repeatedly argued that they alone can provide political stability. If they fail to manage their own partnership, public confidence in coalition politics will weaken further. Smaller parties will once again gain leverage as major parties compete for legislative support, recreating the instability both Congress and UML once promised to end.
This does not mean disagreements should be ignored. Coalition governments naturally produce disputes over policy and power sharing. But mature political parties distinguish between issues that require negotiation and those that justify bringing down governments.
Provincial administrations should not become collateral damage in federal level political battles. The country faces far more pressing challenges than deciding which party controls which ministry. Economic recovery remains fragile. Revenue collection is under pressure. Youth migration continues to rise. Public frustration over governance is growing. These are the issues demanding political attention.
The provinces were created to deepen democracy and improve service delivery, not to serve as arenas for endless power games. If national leaders continue treating them as pieces on a political chessboard, they will strengthen the very arguments of those seeking to weaken or dismantle the federal system.
At a time when federalism itself faces renewed scrutiny, Congress and UML should resist political theatrics and demonstrate that stable provincial governance can still justify the promises made when the federal system was created.
Login to add a comment