In Nepal, public institutions are gradually becoming less impartial, efficient and accountable due to political influence and party interests. Therefore, depoliticization of institutions has been raised as a crucial agenda for good governance. The debate on the need to develop a system based on meritocracy, transparency and professional administration by separating the institutional structure from party interference has also intensified.

The journey towards an open market began after the People's Movement of 2046. However, the reform did not gain momentum with the Maoist armed conflict. The results of the conflict contributed to inclusiveness and governance reform, but also brought the economy to a standstill. Nepal, which was on par with Bangladesh as a least developed country in 1971, is today  about 10 times less in terms of gross domestic product (GDP) and half less in terms of per capita income than Bangladesh. Due to the weak economy, about 4 million Nepalis have emigrated.

A culture of making big promises but not fulfilling them, a leadership that is never connected to production, and individuals, institutions, and bureaucracy that directly or indirectly support those leaderships have turned the country into a broker economy rather than a productive one. Employees, lawyers, businessmen, workers, teachers, and students all have their own leaders and all these institutions seem to be controlled by a few limited leaders. It is a fact that the politicization of institutions is the main factor at the heart of these socio-economic deviations. The social movement that began with Govinda KC about 10 years ago reached its peak last Bhadra. Despite its shortcomings, it can be said that it is basically a unique social movement created by the sweat of the Nepalis, which has also been confirmed by the results of the recently concluded general elections.

According to Edward Page (1991), political appointments help in implementing the government's agenda by controlling technocratic influence. But when political control increases without an objective basis, it is felt that ‘patronage’ relationships develop and institutions become vehicles for the re-election-oriented objectives of the party. As stated in the book ‘Why Nations Fail’, one of the main reasons why Nepal has not been able to achieve prosperity is the weak state of institutions suffering from depoliticization. Since institutions focused on the interests of the elite class and the party, they could not become a means of improving people’s livelihood. Therefore, institutional reform through depoliticization seems inevitable.

Some practices of depoliticization of institutions have been practiced in the 19th century by Max Weber, the Independent Public Service Commission of Britain in 1855, and Widow Wilson’s two streams of politics and administration, etc. After 2000, the World Bank advanced the broad central concept of depoliticization as a tool to increase market credibility in underdeveloped countries. The United Nations has been interpreting the depoliticization of public administration as a tool for overall capacity development since 2003. In a 2006 study by Flinders, especially underdeveloped countries, it has been shown that adopting this concept increases productivity, service delivery, and efficiency.

Let us briefly discuss how the practice of depoliticization of institutions can be adopted in a country like Nepal. This model can be adopted at the broad political level through a commitment to depoliticization, while at the implementation level it can be adopted by using the tools of institutional depoliticization. By making legal arrangements to align the broad objectives or strategic plans of the institution with the government's socio-economic policy as much as possible and by keeping the institution's relationship with the government or political parties in other administrative and institutional matters, the adverse effects of politicization currently seen in the institution can be controlled to a large extent.

For this, political appointments in the institution should be made with fully specified and measurable criteria, reducing discretionary bases, and starting with the appointment of the head of the institution. This can be expected to change the current relationship that appears loyal to political power by ending the unhealthy race to become the head of the institution. The weak government-institution relationship that arises with the political inclination of the head of the institution can be improved by leaking to the lower-level employees, contaminating the entire employees, trade unions, and institutional processes. The priority determination method can also be used to operate the institution in a transparent and continuous succession model. The less objective and more subjective decisions are made, the more limited group-centered decisions will be made, and a sense of inequality will develop in general, and voices of social discontent will increase. Even the current two-thirds government needs to be aware of these issues.

For this, politicians must distance themselves from the administrative control through the appointment of the head of the institution. This can control the institution to a large extent from elite control, unhealthy competition, indiscriminate interpretation of discretionary rights, and the wrong choices that result from it. This will weaken the tendency to kill positions by putting it under the influence of closed-door discussions, which will facilitate the journey of good governance.

The practice of depoliticization should be adopted in institutions by adopting principles such as meritocracy, objective criteria, autonomy without conflict of interest, transparent and clear basis for performance evaluation. In which, a situation should be created where issues such as a competitive appointment process based on multiple criteria, professional public administration, periodic public hearings on regulatory policies and strategic plans, and creative trade unions can be practically used. In the case of trade unions, although the ILO Convention has provided the basis for workers to organize, it has been provided that it should not be given a political coating. The Hatch Convention of 1939 has clearly banned party-based trade unions and provided that public bodies should remain non-political. Although these practices appear to be used legally or at first glance, it does not seem to be practiced in practice.