Crisis of Credibility, Accountability, Trust, and the Shrinking Civic Space
If the history of Nepal’s civil society is one of resistance and reform, its present is caught in a web of contradictions. Once hailed as fearless voices of the people, many civil society organizations (CSOs) now face a growing crisis of credibility. Public trust, once earned through relentless advocacy and community engagement, is increasingly fragile, tested by concerns over internal accountability, donor dependency, political entanglements, and a rapidly shrinking civic space.
While some organizations have stayed true to their founding visions, too many have lost momentum. Rather than being consistent agents of change, they are now seen as intermittent players surfacing during funding cycles and retreating as projects end. This "projectization" of civil society has made responses to deep-rooted social injustices feel fragmented and temporary. Programs often address symptoms rather than the structural roots of inequality, leaving communities feeling unheard and underserved.
A major reason behind this loss of connection lies in how CSOs are increasingly boxed in by rigid donor frameworks and short-term outputs. The creative and contextual problem-solving that once defined grassroots action is now restrained by compliance checklists and narrowly defined indicators of "success." Social transformation, by its very nature, demands time, trust, and local wisdom none of which fit neatly into a logframe.
The growing disillusionment is not only from the outside. Internally too, many CSOs struggle with transparency and participatory decision-making. Reports of financial mismanagement, opaque leadership structures, and limited inclusion of marginalized voices have led to questions: who are civil society organizations accountable to the people, or their funders?
This disconnect has been further exacerbated by political interference. Over the years, civil society spaces have been infiltrated by partisan interests, with formal and informal groups alike being subtly (or overtly) co-opted into the agendas of political actors. Instead of challenging power, some CSOs have aligned with it intentionally or out of survival necessity blurring the line between civic engagement and political maneuvering.
The federal restructuring of Nepal, though promising in principle, introduced its own complications. Many local governments view CSOs not as partners, but as disruptors. Bureaucratic red tape, unclear roles, and at times outright hostility have limited CSOs’ ability to freely operate, especially in advocacy and rights-based work. Rather than facilitating civic dialogue, local policies often silence dissent or delay much-needed interventions.
It is also important to acknowledge the social context in which these organizations operate. Centuries of entrenched hierarchy and exclusion make transformative change difficult.
Despite these setbacks, the public’s residual trust in civil society remains particularly in local, community-rooted initiatives that continue to operate with authenticity and courage. But this trust is not infinite. To remain relevant, Nepali civil society must engage in serious introspection and reform.
Beyond The Existing Silos
While civil society in Nepal continues to confront pressing issues of credibility and trust, its own internal fragmentation further weakens its ability to respond effectively. Many organizations operate in silos pursuing isolated agendas, duplicating efforts, and missing opportunities for greater collective influence. In doing so, we’ve lost the strength of unity and diluted the transformative power civil society once held.
Despite shared visions like justice, equity, sustainability, CSOs rarely collaborate in meaningful ways. Strategic alliances remain rare, and coordination is often limited to donor requirements rather than driven by shared purpose. This fragmentation diminishes the sector’s capacity to respond to complex social issues or challenge shrinking civic spaces with a unified voice. When we fail to align, our demands are easier to ignore, our impact harder to sustain.
The absence of collective strategies also impacts trust within the sector itself. Competition for funding, lack of transparent collaboration, and differing political affiliations have fueled division. Organizations are often reluctant to share resources or align on common messaging, even when their goals overlap. This has created a fractured landscape where mutual accountability is weak, and the public perception of civil society remains fragmented and unclear.
Coalitions offer more than visibility, they build resilience. A collective voice helps overcome political pushback, protects civic space, and ensures sustained advocacy even when individual organizations face pressure. Moreover, coalitions enable joint learning, cost-efficiency, and stronger governance practices through peer accountability.
Nepal’s social issues; climate crisis, caste inequality, gender-based violence, digital rights, are deeply interconnected. No single organization can address these in isolation. Coalition-building allows for a more intersectional response, ensuring diverse perspectives are included and marginalized voices are not left behind.
Networks like the NGO Federation and AIN were established to foster this very coordination. However, in recent years, their role as conveners and facilitators of collaboration has dulled. While initiatives like the NGO’s Code of Conduct exist to promote transparency, professionalism, and ethical behavior, their uptake and enforcement remain weak. There is an urgent need to reinvigorate these platforms not just as regulatory bodies, but as proactive enablers of collective strategy, learning, and accountability.
In a time of shrinking civic space and growing authoritarian tendencies, standing alone is not an option. We must learn to stand together; not just in principle, but in practice.
Civic Ethos: Towards a Nepali Model for Social Change
As Nepal navigates complex political transitions, from federal restructuring to growing political fragmentation, it has become increasingly clear that existing models of development and social transformation are no longer adequate. The traditional focus on infrastructure-led growth, driven by top-down strategies, has largely sidelined deeper social questions of justice, inclusion, and empowerment.
What Nepal needs now is not just a shift in what we develop, but how we imagine development itself. A new Nepali model must emerge, one that is people-centered, locally grounded, and socially just.
Economic indicators alone do not tell the full story of progress. The current emphasis on growth too often overlooks the lived realities of women, children, ethnic minorities, and other marginalized groups. A truly Nepali approach to development must integrate social, environmental, and economic dimensions, recognizing that sustainability is impossible without justice, and growth is hollow without dignity.
Top-down, one-size-fits-all interventions have repeatedly failed to respond to the unique and diverse needs of Nepali communities. Development efforts must now be co-created with local stakeholders, grounded in lived experience, and responsive to power dynamics that shape access to resources and opportunities.
Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) are not merely service providers or watchdogs, they are architects of democratic practice, social innovation, and accountability. In this new model of development, their role is more vital than ever.
At Last,
Despite their growing relevance, CSOs today operate under increasing pressure. From restrictive regulatory provisions by the Social Welfare Council to weak provincial legislation and limited resources, civic space is shrinking. Activists at the national level point to a climate shaped by populist rhetoric and bureaucratic constraints where dissent is viewed with suspicion and civil society is boxed in.
But in this very moment of constraint lies a powerful opportunity; to redefine civil society’s place in the national imagination, not as an appendage to the state, but as a pillar of democracy, justice, and transformative development.