Although the government led by Prime Minister Sushila Karki was formed primarily to oversee elections, it has demonstrated a commendable resolve to improve public service delivery and make a tangible difference in day-to-day governance. The administration has sought to assert its presence not merely symbolically, but through concrete actions aimed at streamlining routine administration. Even modest improvements in efficiency can significantly enhance public satisfaction, and in this respect, most ministers appear to be working with focus and commitment. While the government may be transitional in nature, public expectations understandably extend beyond elections alone. Governance, after all, is also about continuity—particularly in a country where administrative delays and irregularities have long tested citizens’ patience. In such a context, the proactive role played by ministers assumes real importance. A notable example is Minister for Land Management, Cooperatives and Poverty Alleviation Kumar Ingnam, who has taken decisive steps to curb the influence of middlemen in land revenue and survey offices and to reduce chronic delays in service delivery. His intervention followed the discovery that some officials were still attempting to solicit bribes—even when the minister himself posed as a service seeker. In response, he initiated a transfer drive against errant staff and unveiled a 39-point action plan aimed at bringing immediate reforms to land administration. This hands-on approach sends a strong signal that inefficiency and malpractice will not be tolerated. While such basic functions should ideally be handled by the bureaucracy itself, ministerial leadership of this kind has helped inject urgency and accountability into a system otherwise prone to inertia.
Governance in Social transformations in Nepal
More broadly, the government’s approach underscores the need for ministries, departments and public offices to embrace self-reform. Accountability must be felt at all levels, from senior officials to frontline staff. Delays and declining service quality should no longer be treated as routine inconveniences but as failures that demand correction. The Gen-Z movement witnessed last September highlighted good governance as a core public demand, and the current administration’s efforts appear aligned with that aspiration. Where good governance is visible, public trust in the state grows, encouraging citizens to support the government and acknowledge its positive contributions. There is also growing recognition that proactive leadership, even when it involves fulfilling basic ministerial responsibilities, can resonate strongly with the public. Finance Minister Rameshore Khanal’s active engagement in addressing the country’s fragile economic situation reflects this spirit, as does Communications Minister Jagadish Kharel’s personal involvement in dialogue with political parties to help foster a conducive environment for elections. Ensuring broad political participation remains a central responsibility of the government, and on this front, progress has been evident.
Importantly, since its formation, the current government has avoided major controversial decisions. In several instances, it has shown a willingness to correct mistakes made during routine procedures. Rather than reacting defensively to media scrutiny, the administration has encouraged the exposure of its shortcomings. Prime Minister Karki herself has repeatedly urged the media and the public to point out weaknesses. Such openness to correction strengthens public confidence, as citizens are more likely to trust a government that acknowledges errors and demonstrates the courage to fix them. Emerging from a period that bordered on a governance vacuum, the formation of a broadly accepted national government has helped restore a measure of public faith in state institutions. Ultimately, what citizens expect most is good governance delivered through efficient, accessible public services. Many of the frustrations people feel stem from everyday encounters with government offices—from district administration and police offices to land revenue departments. When these services function smoothly, public satisfaction rises; when they do not, alienation deepens. By prioritising service delivery and encouraging a more citizen-friendly approach within their respective domains, ministers are playing a constructive role in bridging this gap. Where the bureaucracy has been slow to act on its own, the government’s current initiatives offer an opportunity to rethink how to build a more responsive, accountable and service-oriented administrative system.
