14 governments in 17 years: How Nepal has struggled with political instability for decades

Nepal is once again in the throes of political chaos after Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli resigned on Tuesday (September 9, 2025), following two days of violent anti-corruption protests that left at least 22 people dead and plunged the country into yet another period of familiar uncertainty.

This latest crisis puts a spotlight on the longstanding pattern of instability in the Himalayan nation, where successive governments have failed to complete their mandates.

Since Nepal transitioned to a republic in 2008, the country has seen 14 different governments, none of which have lasted a full five-year term.

The unrest was triggered after the government announced a social media ban last week and quickly escalated into one of the most serious challenges to Nepal’s political order in decades.

Though the ban was reversed, anger had already spiralled into nationwide demonstrations.

On Monday (September 8, 2025), violence reached a peak when police fired tear gas and rubber bullets to control crowds. 19 people were killed in those clashes, making it one of the deadliest incidents in recent years.

Witnesses reported widespread arson attacks targeting political leaders. The Singha Durbar complex — home to the Prime Minister’s Office, Parliament, and several key ministries — was set on fire, as was Oli’s private residence.

Several prominent figures, including former Nepali Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba, his wife and foreign minister Arzu Rana, and Finance Minister Bishnu Paudel, were assaulted by protesters.

Military helicopters were deployed to evacuate some officials from the violence-hit areas.

Reports also surfaced on Tuesday that former Nepali PM Jhalanath Khanal’s spouse Rajyalaxmi Chitrakar died after sustaining critical burns when their residence in Kathmandu was set on fire during the unrest.

As of Wednesday (September 10, 2025) soldiers were patrolling Kathmandu under an indefinite curfew, as authorities sought to restore order after widespread destruction.

The protests were driven largely by young people as it was dubbed the “Gen-Z” movement. The protests reflected a deep-seated frustration among Nepal’s youth.

Follow Firstpost’s coverage: Nepal Gen Z Protest Live Updates

For years, a lack of employment opportunities has forced millions of Nepalis to migrate to countries like Malaysia, South Korea, and various Gulf nations to work in construction and other labour-intensive sectors.

These migrant workers send remittances home, which have become a vital part of Nepal’s economy.

How Nepalis have been dealing with instability for decades

First there was monarchy and revolution

Nepal’s modern political history is a story of dramatic transitions, beginning with its unification under King Prithvi Narayan Shah in 1768.

For nearly a century afterward, power was concentrated in the hands of hereditary Rana prime ministers following a violent coup in 1846.

During this period, known as the Rana era, the monarch retained only ceremonial authority, while the Rana family governed with absolute power.

The Rana autocracy ended in 1951 when a popular pro-democracy movement, supported by King Tribhuvan, overthrew the system and introduced a parliamentary framework. This marked the beginning of modern democratic politics in Nepal.

However, democratic gains were short-lived.

In 1960, King Mahendra staged a coup, dissolving parliament and banning political parties. He introduced the “Panchayat” system, a centralised form of governance that consolidated power under the monarchy.

By the late 1980s, public dissatisfaction with the Panchayat system had reached a breaking point.

In 1990, the “People’s Movement” forced King Birendra to restore multi-party democracy. This ushered in a new era, but it also exposed the challenges of transitioning from authoritarianism to representative governance.

Then the monarchy ended, albeit with a bloody chapter

In 1996, Nepal faced another major upheaval when the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) launched an armed insurgency with the goal of replacing the monarchy and parliamentary system with a people’s republic.

This conflict, known as the Maoist insurgency, lasted a decade and resulted in more than 17,000 deaths. The war devastated rural areas, displaced thousands, and severely weakened state institutions.

The monarchy suffered a further blow in 2001 with the royal massacre, a shocking event that altered Nepal’s political landscape.

On June 1, 2001, nine members of the royal family, including King Birendra and Queen Aishwarya, were killed in a mass shooting at the Narayanhiti Palace.

Crown Prince Dipendra was named the perpetrator and declared king while in a coma after shooting himself. He died three days later, leading to Birendra’s brother, Gyanendra, ascending the throne.

King Gyanendra’s rule proved contentious. In 2005, citing the need to combat the Maoist rebellion, he dismissed the government and assumed direct control.

His move sparked protests, heating up the demand for an end to monarchical rule. By 2006, mass demonstrations forced Gyanendra to relinquish power, paving the way for peace talks with the Maoists.

The monarchy was formally abolished on May 28, 2008, when the newly elected Constituent Assembly declared Nepal a federal democratic republic.

Gyanendra left the royal palace and began living as a private citizen in Kathmandu.

This historic moment ended 240 years of monarchical rule and set the stage for a new political order.

The task of drafting a new constitution and a broken voting system

Following the monarchy’s abolition, Nepal focused on drafting a new constitution to define its federal structure and democratic institutions.

The process was fraught with disagreements among political factions over issues such as federal boundaries, representation, and minority rights.

The new constitution was finally adopted on September 20, 2015. It introduced a mixed electoral system combining first-past-the-post and proportional representation (PR).

Of the 275 members in Nepal’s federal parliament, 165 are elected through direct voting, while 110 are chosen via PR, in which the entire country acts as a single constituency.

Under the PR system, voters cast ballots for parties rather than individual candidates, and seats are distributed based on each party’s national vote share.

The PR model was designed to promote inclusion of marginalised communities, including women, Dalits, indigenous groups, and other minorities. The law requires that at least one-third of elected representatives be women, with PR seats used to fulfill this quota if necessary.

While the system has improved representation, it has also produced fragmented parliaments where no party holds a clear majority.

This has led to chronic instability, as governments are formed through fragile coalitions that often collapse under the weight of internal disputes.

Opportunistic alliances between parties like the Nepali Congress (NC), the Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist-Leninist (CPN-UML), and the CPN-Maoist Centre (CPN-MC) have become the norm, with power-sharing arrangements frequently breaking down.

Finally, the ever long & instable cycle of coalitions began

Since 2008, Nepal has experienced a revolving door of governments. The first post-monarchy administration was led by Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal, better known as Prachanda, in alliance with the CPN-UML.

His tenure ended in 2009 after a dispute with the president over the dismissal of the army chief, prompting the collapse of his government.

Madhav Kumar Nepal then took over as prime minister, supported by a coalition of the CPN-UML and Nepali Congress.

This government lasted until 2011, followed by a short-lived administration under Jhala Nath Khanal.

Baburam Bhattarai of the Maoists succeeded him later that year but resigned in 2013 amid continuing deadlock.

In 2014, Sushil Koirala of the Nepali Congress became prime minister after forging a coalition with the CPN-UML. During his tenure, Nepal achieved the significant milestone by adopting the new constitution in September 2015.

But in October 2015, KP Sharma Oli became prime minister for the first time, leading a coalition that included the Maoists, Rastriya Prajatantra Party-Nepal, and Madhesi Janadhikar Forum-Loktantrik.

This alliance collapsed in July 2016 when the Maoists withdrew their support, prompting Oli’s resignation.

Prachanda returned to power in August 2016 with the backing of the Nepali Congress.

Sher Bahadur Deuba, president of the Nepali Congress, took charge of the PM post from June 2017 to February 2018.

The 2017 general elections saw a leftist alliance between Oli’s CPN-UML and Prachanda’s Maoist Centre secure a near two-thirds majority. It was agreed that the two leaders would share the prime ministership, with Oli serving first.

However, Oli later refused to step down, triggering a constitutional crisis, eventually serving his third term as prime minister as minority PM.

In 2020, he dissolved the House of Representatives and called for new elections, a move overturned by the Supreme Court in July 2021, which reinstated parliament and appointed Sher Bahadur Deuba as prime minister for the fifth time.

The November 2022 elections resulted in Deuba’s Nepali Congress emerging as the single-largest party but without a majority. Initially, Deuba and Prachanda formed a coalition government.

In December 2022, however, Prachanda dramatically switched allegiance to Oli, forming a new alliance based on a rotation agreement.

By February 2023, this partnership collapsed after disputes over the presidential election, with Oli withdrawing his support.

Prachanda as PM survived a subsequent confidence vote by aligning with multiple smaller parties, including the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), CPN-Unified Socialist, Janata Samajwadi Party, and others.

In July 2024, Oli returned for a fourth term under a new deal with Deuba to alternate as prime minister until the 2027 elections.

But now this plan has unravelled within a year, culminating in Oli’s resignation on Tuesday.

Why Nepal struggles with stability

Nepal’s recurring crises are rooted in systemic flaws. The proportional representation system, while inclusive, has led to a fragmented parliament where no single party can govern alone.

This necessitates coalition governments that are inherently unstable, as they rely on constant negotiation and compromise.

The rise of newer political forces has divided the vote. Recent surveys indicate that over half of Nepalis are dissatisfied with the current electoral model.

Corruption has compounded these problems. Nepal has faced a series of high-profile scandals, including cooperative fraud schemes and irregularities in the telecom sector. Investigations are often hindered by political interference.

In February this year, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) placed Nepal on its grey list for the second time (the first time was from 2008 to 2014), pointing out concerns about money laundering and financial oversight.

Leadership has also been a persistent challenge.

A small circle of veteran politicians — including Oli, Prachanda, and Deuba — dominate Nepal’s political landscape.

Their focus on power struggles and factionalism has often come at the expense of national development.

Nepal’s geographic position between India and China has also resulted in influence over Nepal’s internal affairs, whether through trade, investment or diplomatic pressure.

Political instability in Kathmandu often spills over into foreign relations, with successive governments shifting their alignments between New Delhi and Beijing.

This rinse and repeat cycle in Nepal has also frequently prompted citizens to demand a shift back to monarchy.

With Oli’s resignation, Nepal faces another period of uncertainty.

Political parties are now engaged in behind-the-scenes negotiations to form yet another coalition government.

For ordinary citizens, particularly the youth who led the recent protests, the stakes are high. Decades of instability have hindered economic growth, limited job creation, and fuelled a sense of frustration with the political class.

Also Watch:

With inputs from agencies