Public Health Emergencies and Executive Power in Nepal: Balancing Liberty and Security in a Fragile Federal System

<p>Public health crises leave governments with difficult choices. One side is liberty, the freedom to move, to work, to meet others and to live without too much state control. In contrast, the goal is security: to protect people from disease, to maintain public order and prevent a collapse of health systems. In a democracy these two values must be carefully balanced. Nepal’s experience of COVID-19 is a useful case study of how this balance can be lost when emergency powers are invoked without robust legal safeguards. Nepal is especially important as it has a new federal system and a weak legal framework for public health emergencies. The government has used old and vague laws during the pandemic to put in place lockdowns and other restrictions. This paper describes how Nepal used these powers, the impact of the restrictions on civil liberties and what lessons can be learned for the future. The core argument is that the Nepal experience highlights the perils of relying on old, vague laws instead of clear constitutional emergency procedures. Without strong legal protections, the balance between liberty and security can be tipped too far in favor of executive control.</p>