Ambitious policies and ground realities in Nepal’s digital governance

Artificial intelligence and digital governance are no longer experimental features of public administration; they are becoming structural elements of how states organise authority, deliver services, and define efficiency itself. Across many countries, governments are increasingly embedding digital systems and AI-enabled tools into core administrative functions, from service delivery to policymaking. This shift is not merely technological. It reflects a deeper transformation in governance, in which institutional capacity, data infrastructure, and algorithmic systems are now tightly interlinked.

In South Asia, the relevance of digital governance and artificial intelligence has grown rapidly as states seek to overcome infrastructural limitations and accelerate development through technology-driven solutions. Nepal is also participating in this transition through its broader digital transformation agenda, particularly through initiatives such as the Digital Nepal Framework (2019), ICT-related policies, expansion of e-governance systems, and recent discussions surrounding a national AI policy.

However, a significant gap persists between policy ambition and implementation reality. Nepal’s digital policy regime often appears highly aspirational and imitative, focusing primarily on reducing technological backwardness rather than building inclusive and context-sensitive governance systems. Many policy approaches borrow heavily from external models without sufficient adaptation to Nepal’s institutional, geographical, and socio-economic realities. As a result, digital governance frequently becomes a technical exercise centred on modernisation narratives rather than a broader societal transformation aimed at inclusion, accessibility, and equitable service delivery.

Nepal’s digital governance landscape has gradually evolved through a series of e-governance initiatives aimed at improving public service delivery and administrative efficiency. Existing systems such as online government service portals, the Nagarik App, digital payment systems, online tax filing, and digital administrative services represent important steps towards digitising state-citizen interaction.

The Digital Nepal Framework (2019), introduced by the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, established a broader roadmap for digital transformation across sectors including governance, education, agriculture, healthcare, and finance. Similarly, the Nagarik App was introduced as an integrated citizen-service platform intended to simplify access to government services, digital identity verification, and administrative information. The expansion of mobile banking, QR-based transactions, and digital wallets through both banks and private payment service providers has also accelerated the growth of Nepal’s digital payment ecosystem.

More recently, digital governance has emerged as a central component of the government’s broader governance reform agenda. Recent policy initiatives have prioritised the development of integrated digital governance platforms, national data exchange systems, digital public services, artificial intelligence infrastructure, and the expansion of the digital economy. Alongside these commitments, the government has undertaken significant institutional restructuring by placing information technology, cybersecurity, data management, and electronic governance functions under the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers. These reforms are complemented by recent budgetary commitments aimed at strengthening digital infrastructure, expanding technology-enabled public services, and supporting the implementation of emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence. Together, these developments reflect a growing political commitment to technology-enabled governance and administrative modernisation. However, whether these reforms translate into meaningful improvements in service delivery and administrative efficiency will depend largely on implementation capacity, institutional coordination, and equitable access across Nepal’s diverse geographical and social contexts.

Large sections of the country, particularly remote and mountainous regions, continue to face unreliable electricity supply, poor internet connectivity, and limited digital infrastructure. Consequently, digital governance systems remain disproportionately accessible to urban and digitally literate populations, reinforcing an existing urban-rural digital divide. The major concern lies in the socio-technical limitations of Nepal’s digital systems. Many platforms are designed primarily from a technical perspective without sufficient consideration for accessibility, multilingual support, or varying socio-economic realities. Consequently, elderly citizens, rural populations, and marginalised groups often face barriers in effectively accessing digital services, limiting the inclusiveness of digital governance.

Practical loopholes within digital systems further demonstrate these implementation challenges. Platforms such as the Nagarik App have periodically faced user complaints related to technical glitches, verification delays, and integration problems across databases. Similarly, the rapid expansion of digital payment systems has raised concerns regarding online fraud, cybersecurity vulnerabilities, privacy issues and weak consumer awareness, particularly among first-time digital users.

These implementation challenges can be further understood through the concept of the “design-reality gap”, widely discussed in Information and Communication Technologies for Development (ICT4D) literature. The concept refers to the mismatch between how digital policies and systems are designed and the realities within which they are expected to function. In Nepal’s case, ambitious digital initiatives often assume levels of institutional capacity, infrastructure, coordination, and digital literacy that remain unevenly distributed across the country. Consequently, while policy frameworks may appear technologically sophisticated, their practical effectiveness is frequently constrained by local administrative, social, and geographical realities.

Nepal’s recent adoption of the National Artificial Intelligence Policy 2025 reflects a growing institutional commitment to AI governance. The policy aims to establish frameworks for ethical, transparent, and inclusive use of artificial intelligence, alongside promoting innovation, research, and capacity development across sectors. However, as with earlier digital initiatives, the adoption of policy marks only the beginning of the governance challenge. The key question remains whether Nepal possesses the institutional capacity, financial resources, and technical expertise required for effective implementation.

One major issue is the nature of policy formulation itself. Digital and AI policies are frequently developed through top-down, table-top processes with limited participatory engagement. Public consultation often remains restricted to publishing draft documents on ministry websites without meaningful follow-up discussions or mechanisms for incorporating public feedback. Even when rarely sought, the expert consultations are limited to keeping attendance records with no place for including the advice thus formulated.  This weakens both policy legitimacy and policy effectiveness. Weak implementation capacity remains another major challenge. Government institutions frequently lack skilled human resources, technical expertise, long-term budgets, and institutional preparedness necessary for implementing advanced digital systems. While policy ambitions are often extensive, implementation mechanisms remain fragmented and inconsistent.

Nepal faces significant challenges in data governance, institutional coordination, and policy localisation. Fragmented databases, weak inter-agency coordination, and limited interoperability between systems constrain efficient public service delivery and evidence-based policymaking. The absence of a comprehensive data protection framework further raises concerns regarding citizen privacy, cybersecurity, and accountability. These issues are compounded by Nepal’s dependence on external ideas, technologies, vendors, and policy models, where many digital initiatives draw heavily on foreign governance frameworks without sufficient adaptation to local socio-economic and geographical realities.

At the same time, strengthening data governance requires greater attention to open government data. Internationally, open government initiatives emphasise transparency, citizen participation, and accountability through the proactive release of public-sector information. Open and accessible government data can improve evidence-based policymaking, strengthen public trust, encourage civic innovation, and provide an important foundation for responsible AI development. As open government has increasingly emerged as a global governance norm through initiatives such as the Open Government Partnership, Nepal’s digital transformation agenda would benefit from greater emphasis on data accessibility, interoperability, transparency, and public accountability alongside technological modernisation.

Finally, Nepal’s geographical realities remain a major structural obstacle to inclusive digital governance. Unequal infrastructure distribution, difficult terrain, and limited connectivity continue to restrict equitable access to digital systems. In such conditions, digitisation risks benefiting primarily urban populations while excluding significant sections of rural society.

Moving forward, Nepal’s digital transformation requires a more inclusive, participatory, and context-sensitive approach. Digital governance should not be viewed merely as technological modernisation but as a broader democratic and developmental process centred on citizens’ needs and social realities.

First, policymaking processes must become more participatory and transparent. Meaningful consultation with local governments, civil society organisations, academic institutions, private-sector actors, and marginalised communities is essential to ensure that digital policies reflect broader societal realities rather than narrow technical perspectives.

Second, Nepal must prioritise implementation capacity alongside policy ambition. Strengthening institutional preparedness, training skilled human resources, and ensuring long-term maintenance and funding mechanisms are crucial for sustainable digital governance.

Third, investments in infrastructure and digital literacy are necessary to reduce Nepal’s persistent digital divide. Expanding reliable electricity, internet connectivity, and affordable digital access, particularly in remote and rural regions, must become a national priority if digital governance is to remain inclusive.

Fourth, Nepal requires stronger data governance and cybersecurity frameworks. Comprehensive data protection laws, clearer accountability mechanisms, and stronger institutional safeguards are necessary to build public trust in digital systems and AI governance.

Finally, Nepal can learn important lessons from regional examples such as India and Singapore. India’s digital public infrastructure demonstrates the benefits of interoperability and large-scale digital integration, while Singapore illustrates the importance of institutional capacity, regulatory clarity, and long-term planning. However, Nepal should avoid directly replicating external models without adaptation. Digital governance strategies must remain grounded in Nepal’s own institutional realities, social diversity, and developmental needs.

Nepal’s digital governance and emerging AI initiatives represent important steps towards administrative modernisation and technological transformation. Yet the success of this transition will depend not merely on ambitious policy frameworks or technological adoption, but on whether digital systems can become accessible, accountable, and responsive to the realities of Nepali society. Without stronger institutional capacity, inclusive policymaking, and equitable infrastructure development, digital governance risks remaining more symbolic than transformative.