Explore Policy Nepal

Policy discussions

Policy discussions

Turn a policy idea into a practical proposal. Read the evidence, compare alternatives and exchange structured feedback before writing a plan that government could use.

What is this?

How Policy Nepal plans to host moderated policy discussions, and the rules they will follow.

Why does it matter?

Good policy needs open, evidence-based disagreement. Discussions will open only once moderation and appeals are in place.

See how collaboration works

One proposal. Many contributions. A visible history.

Illustrative example — all participants, events and results below are fictional. This is not a published submission, an adopted policy or evidence of service performance.

Explore the sample: a ward service information pilot

Make service requirements clear before people travel

Original author: Example Author. Contributors: Example Resident (accessibility), Example Reviewer (measurement). These labels demonstrate credit; they do not represent real people or verified identities.

Current proposal · version 2

01 Problem
Residents may make unnecessary repeat trips when required documents, fees and service hours are unclear. This is a hypothesis to investigate, not a measured local finding.
02 Proposed change
Invite one willing ward to test a plain-language service checklist, available on a noticeboard, by telephone and on its website. Staff check the information against applicable rules before publication.
03 Evidence needed
Before a real submission, link the ward’s current citizen charter, official fee schedule and applicable service rules, with dates. Measure repeat visits with voluntary anonymous feedback. No local source or baseline is supplied in this fictional example.
04 Alternatives
Compare the current process, an online-only checklist, and the combined noticeboard, phone and website approach. Online-only access may exclude residents without reliable internet.
05 Implementation
Propose an eight-week pilot, subject to municipal approval, confirmed responsibility and a cost estimate. Name a staff contact, check the list weekly and keep dated corrections. Eight weeks is a proposed trial period, not a statutory deadline.
06 Success and review
Establish a baseline first, then compare repeat visits and reported clarity. Publish sample size, missing responses and limitations. Set a target after the baseline; change or stop the pilot if access worsens. Do not collect names or citizenship numbers for this measurement.

Feedback and author decisions

  1. Example Resident · amendment to version 1

    “Website only” excludes residents without internet. Add a noticeboard and telephone explanation.

    Author: addressed in version 2. Offline access is now part of the proposal. Credit stays with Example Resident; the author makes the change.

  2. Example Reviewer · evidence concern on version 1

    Do not promise fewer repeat visits before measuring the starting point. Record a baseline and report uncertainty.

    Author: addressed in version 2. The unsupported numerical target was removed, with credit to Example Reviewer.

  3. Example Resident · follow-up on version 2

    Could service information also be available in locally used languages?

    Author: still considering. Consult residents and estimate translation costs before deciding. An open suggestion is not an approved amendment.

Revision history: what changed and who contributed?

Version 1 · original draft by Example Author

Initial approach: publish a website checklist and aim to reduce repeat trips by half. Reviewers challenged internet-only access and the unsupported target. This earlier wording is shown to explain the revision, not as a factual claim.

Version 2 · revised by Example Author

Added noticeboard and phone access following Example Resident’s amendment. Replaced the numerical promise with a baseline and review plan following Example Reviewer’s evidence concern. The original author remains responsible for the proposal; contributors retain credit for their own input.

Try this with your own evidence: write directly in the contribution form, publish when ready, and share the discussion link. Other participants add notes; only you revise your proposal. Downloads are optional. Published history follows the site’s withdrawal and privacy rules.

Start or join a real discussion →

Build better policy together

Bring a specific problem, a practical idea and sources others can check. Improve proposals with evidence, alternatives and implementation details. These are participants’ views, not a national consensus or government submission.

  1. Write here and publish when ready. No file upload is needed.
  2. Share the discussion link. Others add evidence, notes or proposed amendments, each under their own display name.
  3. Only the original author edits the proposal. Revisions and author responses remain available with the discussion, subject to withdrawal and privacy rules.

Sign in or create an account to contribute

Anyone can read. Use your real name when contributing. A name or verified email alone is not proof of identity or expertise.

Choosing Nepali on the site turns on Nepali typing in both discussion forms and the draft workspace. You can also use your own Nepali keyboard or paste Unicode Nepali from another editor. Source-link fields keep your own keyboard so URLs work.

How do I type in Nepali?

This is a keyboard layout, not automatic translation. Try nepal → नेपाल or nams/te → नमस्ते. Use / for a half letter (्), Shift for alternate letters and long vowels, and . for ।. Pasted text stays exactly as pasted. Older Preeti-font text needs conversion to Unicode before pasting.

k → क · K → ख · g → ग · G → घ · c → छ · C → च · t → त · T → थ · d → द · D → ध · a → ा · A → आ · i → ि · I → ी · u → ु · U → ू · e → े · E → ै · o → ो · H → अ · M → ं · V → ँ

Start a proposal or add a response

Nothing is sent until you select Publish publicly. Keep private information about yourself and others out of your post.

New proposals need the five section headings in the template: problem, proposed change, alternatives, delivery and success measures. Complete each section and add sources below. Responses can be free text.

    Include a source URL for a new proposal or evidence. Label estimates and opinions clearly.

    How do community review and appeals work?

    Posts appear immediately. Report only abuse, threats, exposed private information or spam. Policy disagreement belongs in a reasoned response. Every verified account has one review vote per post and can change it; authors cannot review their own posts.

    Three reports hold a post when reports outnumber votes to restore it. Verified participants can inspect held content and vote to restore it; it returns when restore votes match reports. The author can ask others to reconsider using the post’s link, or withdraw the post. Counts are public, account identities are private. This is a community safeguard, not a finding that a claim is true or false.

    Economic pillars

    These are national policy issues with different provincial and local consequences. Choose a pillar to discuss. In your proposal, name the province or municipality, the affected people, local evidence and the institution responsible; explain why an approach used elsewhere would or would not fit.

    Explore provincial priorities · Explore local priorities

    From an idea to a policy brief

    Build a proposal. Invite a better answer.

    Prepare your idea here, then copy it into the public contribution form for review. Publish and exchange feedback directly on this site; no upload or download is required.

    Draft workspace: nothing is submitted or published here. Saving is optional and stays on this device. Use the public contribution form above only when you are ready to share.

    Optional: import a file
    Read the background and sources ↗

      Who is affected, where, and how? Separate measured facts from assumptions.

      What should change? Name the service, rule or decision and the intended beneficiaries.

      Add source links, publication dates and the claim each supports. Mark uncertain or missing evidence.

      Include keeping the current approach. Who gains, who bears the cost, and what is the strongest objection?

      Which institution has authority? Specify steps, a timetable, estimated costs, funding and risks. Label estimates.

      Choose a baseline, measurable target, reporting date and who checks results. When should the plan change or stop?

      Disclose relevant affiliations or financial interests. Do not include private contact details or information about other people.

      Review your draft in the contribution form before publishing. Your name and explicit agreement are required; copying does not publish anything.

      Optional: exchange review files offline
      1. Send your downloaded draft to a reviewer.
      2. They import it here and download a structured response.
      3. Import their response, consider it and revise your proposal. Responses stay attributed to the draft version they reviewed.

      Public proposals and structured replies are open to verified accounts. Keep a draft private in the workspace below, or choose Publish publicly in the contribution form. Community reporting and review follow the same rules for everyone.प्रमाणित खाताबाट सार्वजनिक प्रस्ताव र संरचित प्रतिक्रिया दिन सकिन्छ। तलको कार्यस्थलमा मस्यौदा निजी राख्नुहोस् वा योगदान फारममा सार्वजनिक रूपमा प्रकाशित गर्नुहोस् छान्नुहोस्। सामुदायिक रिपोर्ट र समीक्षामा सबैलाई उही नियम लागू हुन्छ।

      Planned ways to take part

      Issue discussionsमुद्दामा छलफल

      One moderated discussion for each National Agenda topic, attached to its evidence, options and trade-offs, so comments stay on the question.हरेक राष्ट्रिय मुद्दाका लागि एउटा व्यवस्थित छलफल, त्यसको प्रमाण, विकल्प र फाइदा-बेफाइदासँग जोडिएको, ताकि टिप्पणी प्रश्नमै केन्द्रित रहोस्।

      Structured debatesसंरचित बहस

      The same questions put to every side, equal time, published rules, and a full transcript with corrections.सबै पक्षलाई उही प्रश्न, बराबर समय, प्रकाशित नियम, र सुधारसहित पूर्ण लिखित विवरण।

      Comments on laws and plansकानून र योजनामाथि टिप्पणी

      Comments attached to a specific provision of a law or plan in our Laws section. These are not official submissions to government.हाम्रो कानून खण्डका कुनै कानून वा योजनाको निश्चित प्रावधानसँग जोडिएका टिप्पणी। यी सरकारलाई गरिने आधिकारिक निवेदन होइनन्।

      Expert briefingsविज्ञ जानकारी

      Short explainers from people with relevant expertise, with their interests disclosed, followed by moderated questions.सम्बन्धित विशेषज्ञता भएका व्यक्तिबाट छोटो व्याख्या, उनीहरूको स्वार्थ खुलाएर, त्यसपछि व्यवस्थित प्रश्नोत्तर।

      House rules

      1. Argue about ideas, not people. No insults, threats or hate against any group.विचारमाथि बहस गर्नुहोस्, व्यक्तिमाथि होइन। कुनै पनि समूहविरुद्ध अपमान, धम्की वा घृणा नगर्नुहोस्।
      2. Back factual claims with a source. Opinions are welcome; label them as opinions.तथ्यगत दाबीका लागि स्रोत दिनुहोस्। विचार स्वागत छ; त्यसलाई विचार नै भन्नुहोस्।
      3. Contributions appear immediately. Three independent reports can hold a post for community review. Verified participants can review and restore it under the published rules; authors can withdraw their own posts.योगदान तुरुन्त देखिन्छ। तीन स्वतन्त्र रिपोर्टले पोस्ट सामुदायिक समीक्षाका लागि रोक्न सक्छन्। प्रकाशित नियमअनुसार प्रमाणित सहभागीले समीक्षा गरी पुनःस्थापना गर्न सक्छन्; लेखकले आफ्नै पोस्ट हटाउन सक्छन्।
      4. Your published contribution and chosen display name are public. Account details, individual ratings and private party-preference answers are never shown with it. Do not post private information about yourself or anyone else.प्रकाशित योगदान र छानिएको नाम सार्वजनिक हुन्छन्। खाताको विवरण, व्यक्तिगत मूल्याङ्कन र निजी दल-रुचिको जवाफ त्यससँग देखाइँदैन। आफ्नो वा अरूको निजी जानकारी नराख्नुहोस्।
      5. Party representatives and officials take part under the same rules and are identified as such.दलका प्रतिनिधि र अधिकारी पनि उही नियममा सहभागी हुन्छन् र उनीहरूको पहिचान खुलाइन्छ।

      Read the background before contributing

      Each National Agenda topic has its own proposal stream. Read the evidence first.

      Monarchy or republicSecular state or Hindu stateFederalism and the provincesIdentity, inclusion and representationForeign-policy balanceEconomic modelJobs and enterpriseLabour migration and remittancesNon-resident Nepalis and the diasporaTaxation and public spendingAgriculture and landEnergy and electricityRoads, transport and infrastructureEducation and healthcareEnvironment and disaster resilienceGovernance and justice