By Our Political Analyst
The latest report by the US-based investigative outlet The Grayzone has raised a question Nepal cannot afford to dismiss: to what extent are foreign-funded organisations shaping the country’s young political leaders, civic activists and public movements?
The report claims that organisations working through the Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening (CEPPS) identified and supported young Nepalis who later emerged as prominent political figures. Among the names mentioned are Prime Minister Balendra Shah, Rabi Lamichhane, Sagar Dhakal and Home Minister Sudan Gurung. The report alleges that some participants received training in leadership, issue formation, youth mobilisation, protest organisation and the use of social media.
These claims have gained particular attention because they come after last year’s violent Gen Z protest, which brought down the previous government and helped create space for a new political formation led by younger figures. Unsurprisingly, many have interpreted the report as evidence that Nepal’s current political leadership was installed by foreign powers.
That conclusion, however, goes beyond the evidence currently available. The report does not establish that the politicians named received personal payments from the US government, nor does it prove that their electoral victories were engineered abroad. Nepal’s political crises, public frustration, institutional failures and youth unemployment are real and deep-rooted. They cannot simply be explained as the product of an external conspiracy.
Yet dismissing the report altogether would be equally irresponsible. The central concern is not whether foreign organisations “created” Nepal’s political discontent. It is whether they selectively identified, trained and promoted individuals who later entered public life—and whether the nature, purpose and extent of that support were transparently disclosed.
The report refers to Niti Sambad, or “Policy Dialogue”, a USAID-funded democracy and governance programme in Nepal. According to USAID documents, the programme operated between 2017 and 2023 with funding reportedly amounting to around $20 million. It worked with electoral institutions, Parliament, political parties, civil society and public policy organisations, and was implemented with the involvement of groups such as the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and the International Foundation for Electoral Systems.
There is nothing inherently illegitimate about international assistance for democracy-building. Nepal’s political parties have weak internal institutions and rarely operate meaningful leadership schools. Universities suffer from limited research support, while media organisations struggle to provide young journalists with adequate opportunities. Training, fellowships, policy research and civic education can strengthen democratic participation.
The problem arises when such programmes become selective, opaque or politically consequential. If a foreign-funded project identifies certain individuals as “catalytic civic leaders” or future political actors, the public has a right to know who selected them, what criteria were used, who financed their training and what objectives guided the programme. Those who later become candidates, lawmakers or ministers should also disclose whether they participated in such initiatives and what form that participation took.
Transparency is essential not because foreign assistance is automatically harmful, but because democracy depends on public trust. Citizens must be confident that political leaders derive their legitimacy from voters and public service—not from undisclosed networks, foreign sponsorship or curated international access.
The government should therefore commission an independent review of foreign-funded political and civic programmes. The review should examine their funding sources, selection procedures, training materials, beneficiaries and links with political parties or public officials. Political leaders who participated in such programmes should voluntarily clarify their involvement. Foreign-funded organisations, for their part, must publish detailed accounts of their activities and beneficiaries while respecting privacy and legitimate civic work.
Login to add a comment