Methodology

How we score Nepal’s leaders

Not a popularity ranking, and not an imported “good governance” score. A model tuned for what Nepal actually is — a young, diverse, developing federal democracy — and for where it needs to go.

The North Star

A clean, capable, inclusive federal democracy that turns a young population and remittances into a productive, sovereign economy — without backsliding into corruption, authoritarianism, or fragmentation.

Every leader is scored on whether they move Nepal toward or away from this.

The six measures

Five are moral judgements that combine into a weighted composite. Relevance is kept separate — it is never praise or criticism.

Integrity & anti-corruption

25% of composite

Corruption is Nepal’s chronic disease — so this carries the most weight.

Truthfulness, ethics, and financial cleanliness. Does their wealth match declared income? Do they champion transparency or evade it?

Evidence we use

Asset declarations vs lifestyle/known wealth
CIAA / Auditor-General findings
Procurement and contract record
Court-proven facts (not mere allegations)
Pattern of honesty in public statements

What the score means

85–100Exemplary. No credible corruption finding; assets consistent with income; proactively champions transparency and accountability.

65–84Solid. Clean public record but limited proactive transparency.

45–64Mixed. Opacity or unresolved questions; allegations exist but are unproven (labelled as such).

0–44Poor. Audit/CIAA findings, unexplained wealth, or procurement red flags — established as fact, with source.

State capacity & economic literacy

20% of composite

Nepal has plenty of politics and too little capability to run a modern state.

Command of law, budgets, institutions, and economics. Can they actually design policy and make the machinery of the state work?

Evidence we use

Quality of laws/budgets/policies authored
Grasp of fiscal and economic reality (remittance trap, jobs, investment)
Institutional and administrative track record
Technical depth in their portfolio

What the score means

85–100Exemplary. Demonstrated mastery of policy, budgets and institutions; credible economic plan to create jobs and reduce migration dependence.

65–84Solid. Competent operator within their domain; sound but not transformative.

45–64Mixed. Generalist; relies on slogans over substance; thin economic grasp.

0–44Poor. Little evidence of policy or economic capability; decisions repeatedly unworkable.

Delivery on the ground

20% of composite

Federalism and services must reach the village, not stop at Kathmandu.

Work actually completed — measured against promises and budgets. Did services, infrastructure, and federal devolution actually improve for citizens?

Evidence we use

Promises kept vs made (with sources)
Budget executed vs allocated
Projects completed in their constituency/portfolio
Service and complaint-resolution outcomes
Institution(s) they run — did they publish budget, improve service?

What the score means

85–100Exemplary. Clear record of completed work; budgets executed; measurable improvement in services or devolution.

65–84Solid. Delivers steadily; some gaps between promise and outcome.

45–64Mixed. Announcements outpace delivery; low budget execution.

0–44Poor. Promises unkept; budgets underspent; little or nothing built.

Democratic & inclusive character

20% of composite

Young democracies backslide, and a diverse society fractures when leaders divide it.

Do they strengthen or hollow out institutions (courts, press, parliament, elections) AND represent the whole country — Madhesh, janajati, dalit, women, remote geography — rather than narrow it?

Evidence we use

Respect for courts, press freedom, parliament, due process
Record on inclusion and proportional representation
Rhetoric: unifying vs communal/divisive
Conduct in/around elections and power transfers

What the score means

85–100Exemplary. Defends institutions and rights; governs inclusively across Nepal’s diversity; unifying.

65–84Solid. Broadly democratic and inclusive, with lapses.

45–64Mixed. Tolerates institutional erosion or leans on identity/patronage politics.

0–44Poor. Undermines courts/press/parliament, or uses communal or authoritarian tactics.

Honesty, realism & sovereign statecraft

15% of composite

Populist fantasy wrecks developing democracies; a landlocked nation must be sober about India and China.

Are their promises possible in law, budget and time? Do they level with citizens, and manage Nepal’s sovereignty and the India–China balance realistically rather than for applause?

Evidence we use

Promises tested against fiscal/legal feasibility
Honesty about trade-offs vs populist slogans
Realism on geopolitics, debt, and foreign deals

What the score means

85–100Exemplary. Promises are costed and achievable; tells hard truths; sober, sovereign statecraft.

65–84Solid. Mostly realistic, with occasional overreach.

45–64Mixed. Frequent unfunded or undeliverable promises.

0–44Poor. Sustained populism; fantastical pledges; reckless on sovereignty/debt.

Relevance (non-moral)

non-moral axis

How much they shape events now — kept separate so it never inflates a moral score.

Current weight in national life: office, influence, agenda-setting power. A high score here is neither praise nor criticism.

Evidence we use

Office held and its powers
Demonstrated influence on the national agenda
Public and institutional reach

What the score means

85–100Defining. Shapes the national agenda directly (e.g. sitting PM/key minister/major party leader).

65–84Significant. Meaningful influence on policy or opinion.

45–64Emerging. Rising or regional figure.

0–44Peripheral. Limited current influence.

Composite weighting: Integrity 25% · State 20% · Delivery 20% · Democratic 20% · Honesty, 15%.

Risk flags

Specific warnings raised only on evidence. A flag is not a verdict; allegations remain allegations until proven.

Corruption finding — CIAA/audit/court finding — established fact, with source.

Criminalisation of politics — Serious criminal record or charges (legal status labelled).

Authoritarian tendency — Undermining courts, press, parliament or term limits.

Communal / divisive — Mobilising along caste, ethnic, religious or regional lines against others.

Populism — Pattern of unfunded, undeliverable crowd-pleasing pledges.

State / foreign capture — Undue influence by business, foreign powers, or patronage networks.

Dynastic politics — Power held/passed through family rather than merit.

Disinformation — Repeated, demonstrable falsehoods to the public.

Unrealistic promises — Specific pledges impossible in law, budget or time.

National trajectory

If the current leadership continues, where is Nepal heading?

75+Toward the North Star. Clean, capable, inclusive, democratic progress.

55+Drifting / mixed. Some progress, undercut by capacity or integrity gaps.

40+Stalling. Politics over delivery; institutions strained.

0+Backsliding. Corruption, division, or democratic erosion winning.

Individual scores aggregate into a reading of where the country is heading — the question that matters more than any one leader.

Our evidence standard

✓ Every score is anchored to sourced, dated evidence — not opinion.
✓ Allegations are labelled as allegations (sub judice); only court/audit-proven facts are stated as fact.
✓ Named individuals get a right of reply, published alongside the record.
✓ Scores are panel-reviewed before they go public, versioned, and change when the evidence changes.
✓ Private life is off-limits; only public conduct and the public record count.

This is what separates accountability from opinion. In a diverse, polarised democracy, an unsourced score divides; a sourced, contestable, trajectory-linked one informs. Suggest a correction or a leader →