We started the journey with several commissions and schemes of administrative reform over the decades. But we have not reached the edge of expected transformation. The repair ship is circling the port of Nalamki on its long voyage.

We have not been able to transform our administration into the central engine of nation-building, whereas countries like India and Singapore have succeeded in making administration itself the indomitable pillar of development and good governance.

In 2009, I went to Japan's National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (GREEPS) for a research fellowship to find the essence of Nepal's administration transformation. Five professors were assigned to supervise my research, led by Professor Masahiro Horei, a retired Japanese government secretary.

On the third day after arriving in Japan, I presented a preliminary research outline for about half an hour in the presence of all five supervisors. All the professors commented almost in unison, “The subject selection is excellent. But how to make it deeper, specific and implementable than the existing study?'

After two hours of intensive discussion, their collective advice was - reduce the scope, increase the depth and discipline fragmented thinking within a single analytical framework. This advice gave strategic direction to my research. Constantly pondering, brainstorming and refining the subject to reach a logical and practical conclusion. The weekly review meetings with Horei were indeed like intellectual penance. 

Eleven weeks later, the second seminar was attended not only by the supervision group, but also by senior administrators from the Japanese government and international peer researchers. The thunder of questions about the implementation of the nine recommendations presented by me (from regulatory simplification to institutional capacity development, from financial discipline to service delivery restructuring) echoed, "Does Nepal have the institutional capacity to implement all these recommendations?" Isn't this an unrealistic list of reforms?'' Such a question was also natural because in the practice of Japan, practicality and implementation are more important than the principles of reform.

I kept missing the moment. The more difficult question puzzled everyone – 'Which one of these nine is the catalyst (lever) that automatically leads to the rest of the reforms?' This question revolutionized my research. After a long conceptual debate, we concluded that the essence of reform is not to complete the nine lists, but to build a coherent system based on inclusive and participatory governance, digital governance (e-governance) and a culture of servant leadership. These tripod-pillars can be a sustainable means of making Nepal's transitional administration credible, competent and citizen-centric.

International experience also proves the strategic effectiveness of this approach. Brazil's participatory budgeting system achieved an unprecedented increase in transparency and citizen trust, reducing corruption by 80 percent at the local level. It proves: Inclusive rights make governance people-based. Kenya's decentralization plan established a new standard of balance of power through inclusive representation of ethnic groups.

Estonia made e-governance the backbone of state-reform, transforming 99 percent of public services online, making a historic breakthrough in speed and transparency in service delivery. Bhutan achieved a 70 percent increase in citizen trust without a federal structure by making servant leadership the basis of governance. Focusing on this context, this article presents an analytical outline of Nepal's administration transformation, witnessing state-restructuring, federal practice and world experience.

Inclusive administration: foundation of democratic practice

Nepal's administrative structure has historically been centralized. The adoption of federalism opened the constitutional door to the decentralization of state power, but even after a decade and a half of federalism implementation, our governing mentality is still centralized. Inclusive participation is not just an option, but an inevitable path to address such deep-seated structural problems.

As mentioned in the famous sociologist Sherri Arnstein's 'Ladder of Citizen Participation' (1969), inclusive governance is not just a limited concept centered on reservation, it is the lifeblood of democratic governance. From this concept, equal access, transparent participation and meaningful representation of representatives of ethnic, linguistic, gender, regional and economic classes are ensured in the policy-making and implementation process.

is also a deeply valued commitment to participatory democracy. As Amartya Sen, the Nobel laureate in economics, has said, when citizens participate not only as thinkers but as co-creators in the running of the state, citizen ownership of the state increases, barriers to corruption weaken, and effective governance becomes possible.

Institutional development of inclusive and participatory governance not only increases policy legitimacy. It also strengthens social equality and civic faith in the state. It revives the civic spirit of 'we are the government' and the administrative value of 'we are the servants'. For the institutional development of inclusive and participatory governance in Nepal, three levels of reform are necessary.

First, the policy level: A clear legal framework should be created that makes public consultation, open hearings and feedback collection a mandatory process. Adopting the participatory theory of economist Jeffrey Sachs, it is necessary to provide real monitoring rights to ordinary citizens by developing an open consultation process and an online monitoring platform from national policy and budget formulation to implementation.

Second, the institutional level: In accordance with the spirit of federalism, the mechanism to ensure transparency and accountability should be strengthened by providing adequate rights and resources to the local government. Practices such as planning public hearings and social audits at the local level should be institutionally implemented. 

Third, the cultural level: The transformation of the mentality and institutional culture of both citizens and administrative staff is inevitable. Employees should imbibe the common value of 'duty is religion' and citizens 'participation is right'. Sustained success of governance lies in public participation. Where inclusive approaches and participatory practices are integrated, policy effectiveness is not only enhanced, but the vitality of democracy is strengthened.

A tripartite partnership between government, civil society and the private sector is essential to implement this change. Only when voices at all levels and regional diversity are reflected in policymaking and service delivery, Nepal will be able to take concrete steps on its journey to prosperity and good governance.

Digital governance: a means of governance transformation

As Dan Tapscott pointed out in 'Governance in the Digital Age', the effectiveness of governance in the modern era depends on the intelligent use of technology, as technology has become the backbone of today's democracy and transparency. But Nepal's administrative system suffers from serious problems such as paper-based, procedural delays, lack of transparency, unclear procedures and lack of innovation.

Such structural inconsistencies add unnecessary burden on both time and money, besides making people tired of going to office. By solving these challenges, the most effective tool to transform the administration system and make it citizen-friendly, agile, transparent and responsive is digital governance. It is not only an instrument of administrative efficiency, but also a permanent basis for strengthening the relationship between the state and citizens through the moderate use of information technology. 

According to the international experience of countries that have advanced in governance reform, three major benefits can be achieved in the governance system through the use of digital technology, which are the cornerstones of overall governance.

First, transparency and accountability: In a digital system, every step of the decision-making process is secure, predictable and trackable, reducing corruption and strengthening public trust.

Second, efficiency and time saving: Automated systems like online services, digital records and electronic payments free citizens from long queues and paperwork.

Third, fact-based policy making: Digital platforms create a strong foundation for data-based, result-oriented and citizen-friendly decision-making. Thus, digital governance helps to transform the relationship between the government and citizens from a 'paper and traditional record' system to a 'data and trust' based administrative system.

Servant leadership: the cornerstone of administrative transformation 

Nepal's administrative system is facing serious challenges such as weak accountability, impunity and lack of implementation capacity. This has led to erosion of public trust and hindrance to national development. There is a need to end this situation and establish an accountable, just governance system, institutional development of servant leadership.

is based on its core philosophy of 'Servant Leadership' (Robert K. Greenleaf, 1970), which views leadership as a sense of service and moral responsibility. Such leadership is not limited to the minimum standard of 'no corruption'. It is an active, ethical and responsive culture, which sows institutional seeds of self-discipline and public accountability. Ethics, service spirit, integrity, transparency, prioritizing access over authority and strong responsibility for results are the basic qualities of servant leadership.

The Chanakya-Sutra that says, 'Constant prosperity is born from morality' reminds us that such leadership considers the position not an opportunity, but a hotbed of public service. Long-term institutional reliability and the moral legitimacy of the regime make the indestructible basis of prosperity rather than momentary power-gains.

In a developing country like Nepal, with political instability and transitional governance, the decisive driving force of administrative reform lies in the institutional development of servant leadership. Our administrative history has proven that we have planned policy and institutional reforms, but the implementation has lacked strategic firmness and value integrity.

is the root cause of this, lack of conscious leadership to shoulder the responsibility. Such leadership is even more decisive in the context of federalism. With federalism, authority was decentralized to the lower levels, but capacity, oversight and common standards did not develop as rapidly.

If an institutional chain of ethical leadership is not built in such an imbalance, corruption may not only be decentralized but also qualitatively expanded. Therefore, in the three-legged-pillars of Nepal's administrative transformation, the basic pillar is servant leadership and also the foundation stone for standing the other two pillars like inclusive administration and digital governance.

Conclusion: Structural Transformation from Tripod-Column

A combination of both the discussions at Grips and my experience in various government agencies, it is clear that we often make a long list of reforms and all of them appear to be urgently needed. But we have historically missed disciplined prioritization based on the criteria of implementation capacity.

We adopt an unlimited expansion approach despite limited resources and weak execution capabilities. As a result, even if the policies look admirable in design, most remain on paper. Some move only partially. And even fewer enter the full cycle of implementation. In the case of Nepal, a rough estimate is that even a quarter of the reform commitments mentioned in the policy and program and budget statements are not operationalized on time. For more than half of the

s, even the necessary resources are not allocated. The rate of implementation of policy indicators and targets of periodic plans is even lower. Similarly, the reports of the Administration Reform Commission and the Public Expenditure Review Commission are also far behind in terms of implementation.

Economist Douglas North's (1990) 'institutional change theory' uncovers the essence of our implementation weakness: its root cause is neglect of fundamental sequencing - the tendency to erect 'pivots' without strengthening the 'foundation' of reform. We quickly rush to build structures: new units, new directors, new guidance. But we don't spend energy on strengthening the fundamentals of reform. So our reforms are neither scalable nor sustainable.

Therefore, the basic teaching of the reform journey is clear in terms of our incomplete efforts till date: putting the dignity of citizens at the center, making technology a bridge to governance and binding leadership to the formula of service and ethics. Transforming our administrative apparatus requires moving away from an inventory-centric reform approach to a strategic priority-centric transformation path.

As Harvard University's Governance Study (2022) confirms, we need to take an approach focused on full implementation rather than a pile of unfinished reforms. The tripod-pillars presented here are not only the basic foundations of reform, but also mutually complementary and indispensable companions. Digital expansion without inclusion can only give a new cloak of technology to old exclusion. Without digital governance, an inclusive process can stall at announcements, and without servant leadership, both these pillars can fall into the trap of corruption and delay.