Since the restoration of democracy in 1990, leadership succession in the Nepal Police has never been smooth. Every appointment after that has been marred by controversy. An organization led by individuals whose ascension to leadership is contentious tends to stagnate and lose momentum for institutional progress. Despite its numerical growth, the Nepal Police today remains hollow as an institution, suffering from a serious erosion of its legitimacy.
There is a growing discussion about increasing political interference and influence within the Nepal Police. However, it is important to recognize that such interference does not stem solely from political actors seeking control. The police leadership must also share responsibility. The police is a hierarchical organization governed by a chain of command, where subordinates inevitably emulate their superiors. Institutional provisions and organizational culture reinforce these dynamics. When senior leaders align themselves with political interests, the rest of the organization often follows suit. Today there is an increasing trend of officers becoming accustomed to calculating the likely political effect first of any enforcement action they contemplate.
Nonetheless, it would be unfair to overlook the professional officers of the past who resigned when subjected to political manipulation and marginalization. Nor should we ignore today’s small but exceptional cohort of competent officers who strive to uphold their integrity and swim against the tide of political interference.
In any democracy, the ultimate responsibility for public safety and security lies with elected representatives—specifically, the Home Minister or their equivalent. The police serve as implementers. Thus, the police and the political executive are partners in a shared mission: preventing and investigating crime, maintaining public order, and ensuring access to services that protect life, property, and liberty. This relationship holds fundamental constitutional significance in any state.
In the context of Nepal’s nascent democratic practices, balancing democratic values with a firm commitment to the rule of law remains particularly challenging. The police, rooted in a colonial legacy of coercion and state control, must shift toward restraint, accountability, and a democratic ethos. At the same time, the perception that the police are directed by the government of the day raises concerns about partisan influence, which can distort state responses and judicial outcomes. Unfortunately, many factors in Nepal compel politicians to place partisan interests above the broader public good. The inability of police leadership to distinguish these partisan motives and the public interest undermines the core ethos of the police as a public service.
Policy Convergence and Small Changes: An Economic Idea Left Beh...
Ambiguous Political Direction
We must acknowledge that the police is a social institution, created and sustained by political processes to enforce prevailing conceptions of social and public order. In a society divided by class, ethnicity, gender, and other forms of inequality, even laws that are impartially written and enforced may still be perceived by some groups as oppressive or disproportionately harmful.
While policing is inherently political, it need not be politicized in its methods, tactics, or organizational structure. Today, powers such as appointment, transfer, and promotion are often exploited as tools for rewarding political loyalty or punishing dissent—diverging sharply from their intended purpose of supporting sound administration and merit-based career progression.
For policing to function efficiently, impartially, and responsively, the roles, powers, and responsibilities of each actor must be clearly defined. A careful balance must be struck between legitimate political oversight and illegitimate interference. At the same time, the police must remain accountable to elected officials to ensure that laws are enforced fairly and duties are performed in accordance with legal and ethical standards. Political leaders, for their part, must rise above partisan interests, formulate policies that serve the broader public good, and hold the police accountable for poor performance or misconduct. This is essential for maintaining public trust in an institution funded by taxpayers.
The Nepal Police is currently facing a crisis rooted in a flawed interpretation of civilian supremacy and the imposition of vague, ambiguous notions of “superintendence” and “control” as outlined in police acts and subsequent bylaws.
Looking forward
To address this, Nepal must look outward and learn from globally tested models that ensure a proper balance of autonomy, transparency, and accountability. International best practices—adapted to the local context—typically include constitutional and legal safeguards that guarantee police independence from political manipulation while providing legitimate frameworks for oversight by the political executive and other branches of government.
Both the police and the Home Minister must clearly understand the limits of their respective jurisdictions. A crucial step toward establishing an appropriate political–police relationship is to legally define the government's role vis-à-vis the police and to codify the principles of operational and functional independence. The distinction between legitimate political oversight and inappropriate political interference is critically important—not only in how it is defined in law and policy, but also in how it is implemented in practice.
One option worth considering is the establishment of a Police Board or Public Safety Commission composed of eminent, nonpartisan civil society representatives to serve as an intermediary between the government and the police. Modern police laws define the government's policy-directing role in various ways. In this context, “policy” includes developing policing plans, setting performance standards and evaluation metrics, and establishing robust accountability mechanisms. Some of these laws also specify the responsibilities of ministers in providing strategic direction and outline how those responsibilities should be exercised.
Conclusion
As the debate over the proposed Police Bill continues, it is both necessary and encouraging to seek legislative clarity that precisely defines the contours of the police–executive relationship—a hallmark of democratic policing. For a democratic policing model to be viable, political involvement must become more transparent, enabling the responsible minister to be held accountable for any guidance issued to the police.When police and politicians collude around short-sighted partisan priorities it ultimately contributes to the erosion of democracy. We remain hopeful that lawmakers who represent the people will set aside partisan interests and work seriously towards building a professional police institution dedicated to protecting the safety and democratic rights of all Nepalese.
The author is affiliated to Center for Security and Justice Studies (CSJS)
