Submit your Article

The US presidency is widely respected for its authority and global influence, given the nation’s military strength, economic leadership and role in promoting democracy. However, the past decade has been a pivotal period for American democracy and its core values. Donald Trump’s presidency ignited a powerful political movement, deepening political divisions. He strategically expanded his influence using misinformation, conspiracy theories, personal attacks, financial resources and nationalist rhetoric. His targets extended beyond political opponents to include government institutions, the judiciary, the legislature, foreign allies, the press, international organizations and the business community

Many analysts describe Trump’s Republican Party as an authoritarian populist movement seeking to centralize power within the presidency. Concerns have grown both domestically and internationally about whether Trump aligns with fascist ideology. While the debate over whether he is a fascist leader continues, he undeniably exhibits several fascist characteristics. At the very least, Trump is an ultranationalist and a populist.

According to Merriam-Webster, “Fascism is a populist political philosophy, movement or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual, is associated with a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader and is characterized by severe economic and social regimentation and forcible suppression of opposition.” Trump’s rise to power relied on populist rhetoric, framing the political system, media and foreign policy as corrupt and dominated by left-wing elites. His administration attacked foreign allies, institutions, political opponents and immigrant communities, reflecting an authoritarian governance style. His "America First" agenda frequently sought to diminish the influence of sovereign nations, including US allies. For example, Trump referred to Canada as the "51st state" and called its Prime Minister a "governor," which many saw as an attempt to intimidate a foreign leader. Domestically, he aligned with billionaires like Elon Musk, leveraging their influence to undermine government agencies and threaten federal employees.

The Council on Foreign Relations outlines five stages through which fascism rises to power: emerging from public disillusionment, establishing legitimacy as a political movement, gaining power through right-wing partnerships, using power to dominate institutions and implementing radical reforms. Trump has demonstrated all five stages in his pursuit of power. He capitalized on public dissatisfaction with war, economic disparity, immigration, bureaucracy and media bias. He also discredited the US judicial system, particularly when facing criminal indictments, portraying his legal troubles as political persecution. His ability to harness these grievances reshaped the Republican Party into a populist right-wing movement.

Many Republican leaders have avoided acknowledging key issues such as the January 6 insurrection, the legitimacy of the 2020 election and international conflicts like those in Ukraine and Gaza, reinforcing Trump’s influence over the party. He has also shown a willingness to collaborate with authoritarian and right-wing leaders worldwide, signaling a preference for figures who challenge democratic norms. His alignment with wealthy elites and tech giants reflects a tendency to prioritize the interests of billionaires over working-class Americans. For instance, he advocated for tax cuts benefiting the wealthy while proposing reductions in social security and medicare that disproportionately affect lower-income Americans. His partnerships with corporate leaders, particularly in the tech sector, allowed him to push for deregulation and policies that benefit the elite while weakening protections for the general public—hallmarks of authoritarian economic control.

Trump repeatedly sought to dominate institutions, including the judiciary. He openly disregarded court rulings that went against his interests and expressed a desire to reshape government structures to serve his agenda. Trump’s push for radical reforms, often benefiting his donors and allies, demonstrates his intent to consolidate power beyond legal norms. While the extent of his success remains uncertain, he has shown a clear willingness to challenge democratic systems and test the boundaries of his authority.

While Trump may not fully succeed in becoming a fascist leader, he undeniably embraces fascist characteristics and has implemented policies that reflect authoritarian tendencies. Before the 2020 election, Cornell University professor Isabel Hull argued that Trump was “not principled enough to be a fascist” and labeled him a “nativist-populist.” However, since then, Trump has intensified his ultra-nationalist and populist approach.

His desire to suppress opposition—though limited by American democratic norms—manifests in policies targeting immigrants, political adversaries and critics. While he may not be able to completely dismantle democracy, his leadership has undeniably pushed the US toward authoritarianism. The American people may ultimately prevent Trump from achieving full-fledged fascism, but his political movement has already demonstrated alarming authoritarian tendencies that cannot be ignored.

Donald Trump’s presidency has significantly reshaped American politics, fostering a populist movement that challenges democratic norms and institutions. While the debate over whether he is a fascist leader continues, he undeniably exhibits key fascist characteristics, including ultranationalism, authoritarian rhetoric and efforts to consolidate power. His attacks on political opponents, government institutions, the judiciary, the media and foreign allies align with historical patterns of authoritarianism. By capitalizing on public grievances, forming alliances with right-wing elites, and pushing policies that favor the wealthy while undermining democratic institutions, Trump has shifted American governance toward an increasingly authoritarian trajectory. Although the US system of checks and balances has constrained his power, his influence continues to grow, posing an ongoing challenge to the resilience of American democracy.

Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States, passed away at the age of 100, leaving behind an enduring legacy as a humanitarian, advocate for peace, and champion of human rights. His life was a testament to humility and service, symbolizing the principles of a true humanitarian. Carter’s most significant contributions came after his presidency, proving that former leadership roles can be harnessed for greater societal good.

In contrast to many global leaders who cling to power until their last breath, Carter chose a different path. In Nepal, politics is often seen as a lifetime occupation, with leaders reluctant to step away from the political stage. Carter, however, demonstrated that one's impact can extend far beyond the tenure of an official role. Despite facing numerous challenges during his presidency—including the energy crisis, Soviet aggression, and the Iran hostage crisis—he remained steadfast in his principles and commitment to service. His post-presidential work earned him global admiration, not just as a former US president but as a global humanitarian.

Nepali leaders could greatly benefit by emulating Carter's qualities: resilience, integrity, dedication, and adherence to personal principles. Carter provided a clear vision and skillset to create meaningful change even after leaving office, a lesson Nepali politicians should adopt.

Carter was not widely popular during his presidency, particularly when he sought re-election. The American public doubted his leadership during tough economic times. However, his unwavering resolve to serve humanity became his hallmark. Through the Carter Center, he addressed global challenges, including health care, democratic governance, and human rights. Even in declining health, he continued his mission to improve lives worldwide, exemplifying hope and resilience.

Nepali leaders, by contrast, often fail to contribute meaningfully outside the political arena. This stems from an identity crisis and an egoistic mindset that prevents them from engaging in other areas of service. Nepal has many academically and professionally capable former leaders who could contribute to nation-building through education, economics, or social initiatives. Yet, few follow Carter’s example of using their experience to serve the greater good.

Carter’s simplicity and discipline stand in entirely contrast to the materialism and extravagance that characterize many Nepali leaders’ lifestyles. His unwavering integrity, commitment to peace, and belief in human rights shaped his legacy. Nepali leaders often foster corruption and social inequality through their pursuit of luxury and power. Carter, on the other hand, will be remembered not for his presidential power but for his modest, principled life. The current fragility of Nepali society—marked by political dilemmas, misinformation, and populist agendas—calls for leaders who prioritize unity, social harmony, and fact-based solutions. Nepali leaders must abandon political biases and work towards strengthening democracy, ensuring justice, and promoting economic prosperity.

Carter came to office in 1976, offering a fresh alternative following the Watergate scandal. His administration emphasized transparency, human rights, environmental conservation, and historic achievements like the Camp David Accords, a historic peace agreement between Egypt and Israel. However, economic struggles and international crises overshadowed his presidency. Despite these setbacks, Carter never wavered in his honesty and commitment to his principles.

One of Carter’s most profound statements reflects his philosophy:

“I believe that anyone can be successful in life, regardless of natural talent or the environment within which we live. This is not based on measuring success by human competitiveness for wealth, possessions, influence, and fame, but adhering to God’s standards of truth, justice, humility, service, compassion, forgiveness, and love.”

Carter’s dedication to doing even small things with consistency and humility made him a leader for the people rather than for a party. Nepali leaders can learn from his legacy that serving the people and pursuing greater causes outweigh political ideologies or party loyalties. Jimmy Carter’s life is a reminder that leadership is not confined to holding office but is defined by one’s actions and principles. Nepali leaders must focus on building a legacy that future generations can admire. This is the time to act—to strengthen Nepal’s democracy, foster social justice, uphold the rule of law, and pursue economic prosperity. By embracing Carter’s values of service, humility, and integrity, Nepali leaders can transform their country into a more just and prosperous society. 

President Jimmy Carter exemplified humility, integrity, and a committed dedication to public service, with his most impactful accomplishments occurring after his presidency. Through his efforts to improve global health, uphold human rights, and promote peace, he demonstrated that true leadership extends far beyond the confines of political office. Unfortunately, many Nepali leaders remain fixated on retaining power and struggle to contribute meaningfully outside the political sphere, often constrained by personal ego. By embracing Carter's values of simplicity, resilience, and service to the greater good, Nepali leaders could strengthen democracy, foster social harmony, and build an enduring legacy that inspires many generations to come. The question remains: Will they rise to the challenge?

The rise of populism and a crowded political culture threaten Nepal’s democracy. Although this perspective may be controversial, I believe in the need for a transparent and democratic political system that allows Nepalis to thrive in diverse ways. Nepali voters are understandably frustrated with current governance and political instability. However, it is alarming when educated and influential figures fuel political division, spread populist ideas, and engage in conspiracy theories—actions that undermine Nepali democracy. Nepal is still on its path to becoming a fully democratic state, and this journey may take generations. This does not mean Nepal’s democracy has failed; rather, it is evolving. Several factors, however, have weakened Nepal's democratic system, including the rise of populist trends, radical political groups, and the constant shifts in agendas since the 1990s reforms. Traditional political ideas have also struggled to uphold democratic values, causing a rift between voters and political parties.

In recent years, populism has gained momentum in Nepal’s political landscape. Notable figures like Rabindra Mishra, a former journalist, entered politics with strong anti-corruption rhetoric, earning public trust. Yet, his shift from democratic to authoritarian ideologies exposed him as a deceptive leader. TV journalist Rabi Lamichhane entered politics with vague and false promises, using his media influence to gain power without offering clear policies. He quickly became one of the most controversial figures, embroiled in scandals involving passport fraud, citizenship issues and financial misconduct. Lamichhane founded the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), which performed well in the 2081 general election and attracted educated candidates. However, the RSP remains a populist party without a solid ideology, relying on blame tactics and controversial leadership. Lamichhane's involvement in coalition politics appears to be a strategy to shield himself from legal consequences, and his negative populist rhetoric continues to endanger Nepal’s democratic and legal system.

Recently, authorities arrested Lamichhane for his alleged involvement in a credit union fraud scheme, based on evidence collected by a parliamentary investigative committee and the police. Although the investigative process may lack full transparency, his arrest was properly carried out by government authorities and investigative bodies. Unfortunately, many of his political supporters, including some self-proclaimed intellectuals from his party, took to the streets and engaged in violent protests. This behavior presents a serious threat to Nepali democracy and the rule of law.

As a journalist, Lamichhane loudly criticized other political parties for violent or unethical actions. Now that he faces similar accusations, it raises questions about his integrity. It is crucial to remember that other high-profile political leaders are currently in jail, and their party members have not interfered with police investigations or the judicial process. Nepali leaders and the public must recognize that Lamichhane is not above the law and must cooperate with government and legal institutions like anyone else.

Nepal’s democracy has faced challenges from both radical left- and right-wing ideologies. Some leaders cling to outdated beliefs in socialism or communism, despite these systems failing in countries like China, Russia, Israel, India and the UK. Others advocate for a return to monarchy, an idea that has been tried and failed. These are merely opportunistic attempts to gain power. 

Meanwhile, democratic leaders have struggled to meet the Nepali people’s expectations. The bureaucracy remains inefficient, and successive governments have failed to address the country’s social, economic and foreign policy challenges. Since the 1990s, Nepal has dealt with crises like the Maoist insurgency and regional conflicts, yet political leaders have not been able to offer a unified, long-term vision for the country’s progress.

The rise of populism and divisive political culture poses a significant threat to Nepal’s fragile democracy. While frustration over current political instability is understandable, influential figures fueling populist sentiments and spreading conspiracies undermine the democratic process. Figures like Mishra and Lamichhane have introduced dangerous populist trends that distract from the real progress Nepal needs. Lamichhane's recent legal troubles and the violent protests from his supporters demonstrate how populist leaders can destabilize the rule of law. No one, including prominent leaders, should be above the law. Both the public and political figures must prioritize the integrity of democratic institutions over personal ambitions. For Nepal to move forward, leaders must provide transparent governance and long-term visions, while the public must stay vigilant against populist movements that offer no real solutions. True progress lies in a unified commitment to democratic values and accountability.

Views are personal

American democracy, while not perfect, is widely regarded as the most transparent and vibrant in the world, praised globally for its democratic process and the rule of law. The democratic process in the US is consistently practiced from the local level to the federal government, instilling faith in the Constitution and the governmental institutions. However, political polarization has significantly increased. Since the 2016 presidential election, US democracy has faced numerous challenges in maintaining public trust. 

The recent announcement that President Joe Biden will not seek reelection and has endorsed Vice-president (VP) Kamala Harris as the presidential candidate has introduced a new political dynamic. Many Democrats and American voters praised President Biden’s decision to endorse Kamala Harris as the next Democratic presidential nominee. However, some within the new Republican political spectrum are skeptical. Trump Republicans criticize her as a radical leftist and an incompetent candidate for the US presidency.

Despite the political blame-game surrounding the election campaign, US democracy remains strong and continues to prove the nation as a land of opportunities. As the world watches Kamala Harris as the presumed Democratic candidate for the upcoming presidential election, analysts believe that US democracy is still robust and functioning well. Nothing is impossible in America, a country that values the core principles of democracy, the rule of law, human rights, fundamental freedoms, fair and free elections, separation of powers, and civil participation. VP Harris, the daughter of immigrant parents, becoming the presumed Democratic nominee for the upcoming presidential election, exemplifies the power of democracy.

America has never elected a woman president, but Kamala Harris, who holds the second-highest office in the land, is on the path to potentially achieving this milestone. Despite many developed and developing countries already having women leaders, Americans have hesitated to elect a woman president. If Harris becomes the Democratic nominee and wins the election, she will make history as the first woman, Black person, and person of South Asian descent to serve as US president. However, her path to victory is challenging, and she may face significant obstacles in her campaign.

America remains a patriarchal society, with people often having less trust in women leaders, perceiving them as weaker. During the 2016 election campaign, Donald Trump criticized his opponent, Hillary Clinton, calling her a weaker leader and stating that she should not be the commander-in-chief of the military. This type of misogynistic thinking plays a significant role in US politics and society. Data suggest that the US lags behind many of its allies regarding the gender pay gap. According to Pew Research, women earned, on average, 82 cents for every dollar earned by a man in 2022. Additionally, the US Supreme Court’s repeal of Roe v Wade has made abortion access more difficult for women. These examples demonstrate that America continues to practice patriarchy, and gender equality is neither a linear process nor a guaranteed outcome in the US

Misinformation and propaganda campaigns have played a huge role in recent elections in the United States. Trump has a proven record of spreading misinformation among far-right activists and his nationalist base. He attacks everyone who opposes his views with hate, bullying, and authoritative language. He attacked Barack Obama stating that he was not a US-born citizen, and he already started intimidating VP Harris with a similar tone. He focused on personal attacks rather than policy agendas in his election campaign, which disregards democratic values, integrity and moral perspectives. Media and online social platforms make it easy to spread false information and there is no control mechanism over it. When leaders fail to demonstrate integrity and moral values, their followers may choose a similar shallow path. Despite this, VP Harries has strong support from the educated and young enthusiastic voters, which is a plus for her in this election. 

In her book, former Republican congresswoman Liz Cheney expressed concern over the Republican Party’s shift from traditional conservatism to a more populist and nationalist agenda. She was particularly disturbed by Trump's endorsement of conspiracy theories, his assaults on US institutions, and his neglect of democratic principles. Cheney argued that Trump’s leadership represented a significant danger to American democracy. An increasing number of Republican leaders are distancing themselves from the party due to Trump’s vision, which they believe undermines democratic values and threatens American democracy. 

In recent years, members of both the Democratic and Republican parties have shifted to more extreme positions on certain issues. While the Democratic Party has demonstrated its ability to unite despite internal divisions, the Republican Party has struggled to find common ground and has become increasingly fractured. Trump will undoubtedly launch personal attacks on VP Harris during the election campaign, but Democratic leaders appear united in their support for her as they aim to win the battle. 

A 2023 Pew Research survey revealed that 60 percent of Americans often feel exhausted when thinking about politics, while 55 percent frequently feel angry. Only 10 percent of respondents often feel hopeful about politics, and fewer than four percent feel excited. Many voters are discontented with politics and political leaders due to the blame-game and perceived lack of integrity. However, American political and governmental institutions remain strong, enabling them to perform their duties with less fear compared to other countries. Despite political divisions, US democracy remains robust and capable of upholding democratic values for its people, thanks to these resilient institutions.

The upcoming American presidential election is drawing significant global attention, not only due to intense political conflict within the US but also because of escalating tensions between various nations. The American presidency can greatly influence the Israeli war in Gaza, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the shifting power dynamics between the United States and China. To navigate these changes in the world order and maintain geopolitical hegemony, the US must continue to stand by its global allies. President Biden’s willingness to step down from political power and promote the democratic process exemplifies American democratic values. However, selecting the right leader for the White House is a crucial decision that will be made in the upcoming election.

While American democracy faces significant challenges, including political polarization, misinformation, and enduring gender inequality, it remains a robust and resilient system. The potential presidential run of Kamala Harris highlights both the progress and the ongoing struggles within this democracy. Harris’s candidacy is historic, and despite the obstacles she faces, her strong support from young and educated voters underscores the dynamic nature of American politics. As the world watches the upcoming election, the United States continues to demonstrate its commitment to democratic values and the rule of law, emphasizing the importance of choosing a leader capable of navigating both domestic and global challenges.

Views are personal

Despite knowing rape is a serious crime, it is often normalized in Nepali society. Influential figures show no sympathy for the victim while attempting to glorify the perpetrator and trivialize the crime. This trend is evident in recent incidents where society appears chaotic, tolerating such acts in the name of celebrity. It seems that efforts are being made to manipulate the law in favor of perpetrators, using various temptations to weaken the victim's outlook. Despite recognizing rape as a horrible crime, why does our society ruthlessly condone it under the costume of power and fame? This is a pressing and thought-provoking issue.

Rape involves the non-consensual penetration of the body, typically through sexual intercourse or other forms of penetration, achieved by force, coercion, or manipulation. It represents a profound violation of an individual’s autonomy, dignity, and bodily integrity and is universally condemned as a criminal offense. Nevertheless, instances of rape persist across both developed and developing nations, with women and children often bearing the brunt of such assaults. Specifically, children may struggle to comprehend the nature of the attack and often feel apprehensive about reporting it. Perpetrators may exploit fear and control tactics to silence victims, thus evading accountability in society. Despite rape's designation as a serious crime, societal shortcomings frequently impede impartial investigations and the pursuit of justice for survivors.

In Nepali society, incidents of rape and sexual assault rarely come to light or reach the police for investigation. Instead of conducting thorough investigations, the police and local government often attempt to mediate between the perpetrator and the victim. Power and money frequently play a significant role in silencing the victim. In recent high-profile rape cases in Nepal, perpetrators have used their influence and emotional manipulation to evade the law. While we must respect court decisions, it is crucial to discuss the issues and challenges surrounding these cases.

Our primary problem is unethical leadership in both the political and social spheres. Many incidents of sexual assault and rape do not come to light due to the abuse of power by political figures. Political leaders involved in sexual misconduct often escape justice and are even rewarded with greater responsibilities within their parties and the government. Political parties and their members lack clarity and ethical standards on issues like sexual assault and rape. Moral dilemmas are pervasive among them. For the advancement of democracy, political parties and their leaders must be disciplined. However, all political parties in Nepal, both new and traditional, have failed to demonstrate ethical integrity. If political leaders do not grasp the seriousness of sexual assault and rape, a disciplined society is unattainable.

Recently, Maoist leader Janardhan Sharma posted on social media about a high-profile rape case involving cricketer Sandeep Lamichhane, saying, “Congratulations to cricketer Sandeep Lamichhane for getting justice, thanks to the court. Nepali cricket will reach new heights.” Remarks like these from high-ranking politicians are deeply disappointing. The district court initially convicted Lamichhane, and although the high court overturned this decision, the victim can still appeal to the Supreme Court. When political leaders publicly side with perpetrators, it undermines public trust in their leadership.

It’s crucial to understand that emotion should not play a key role when dealing with criminal matters. For instance, some argue that Lamichhane, as a national figure who has made Nepal proud, deserves leniency. However, we must remember that a national figure should exemplify moral and ethical integrity. 

Moreover, Nepali society is shifting toward a crowd-based justice system. When perpetrators or convicted criminals are released from jail, people cheer and welcome them. What kind of example does this set? In a democratic society, the rule of law must be upheld, and institutions should operate independently on the basis of laws and regulations. Think about our daughters, children, or relatives, who have suffered from sexual assault. What comes to mind? Can we accept the norm that celebrities can do anything they want? The answer is no. We all have a responsibility to build a support system for rape victims and advocate for independent investigations and justice. High-profile sexual assault cases can be overlooked by society; therefore, citizens must remain vigilant in this matter.

The Harvey Weinstein rape case is a prominent example of sexual assault allegations leading to significant legal and social consequences in the United States. Weinstein, a powerful film producer, was accused by numerous women of sexual assault and rape, with allegations spanning several decades. In 2018, he was arrested, and in 2020, he was convicted and sentenced to 23 years in prison. His conviction marked a significant victory for survivors of sexual assault and set a precedent for holding powerful individuals accountable for their actions. This landmark case encouraged other victims to come forward and seek justice.

The revelations about Weinstein sparked the worldwide #MeToo movement, encouraging sexual assault victims to share their experiences. This case illustrates that even in developed societies, survivors of rape or sexual assault often struggle to come forward. One can imagine how much more difficult it is for victims in societies like Nepal, where trust in the judicial system is low, and sexual assault survivors face many challenges. The recent rape cases involving Lamichhane and Paul Shah have been highly controversial due to their nature and the information released to the public.

News reports revealed that the sexual assault survivor was demoralized by Lamichhane through phone calls and messages. He attempted to silence the survivor using temptation and fear. It is troubling that a perpetrator was able to contact the survivor while the case was still in court. If Lamichhane was innocent, why did he try to persuade the survivor in his favor? Some people have irrationally blamed the victim's character, which is outrageous. Both Shah and Lamichhane are public figures, and people want to be close to them. That does not permit celebrities to be involved in sexual misconduct. Celebrities should act responsibly as they are role models for many. Even a celebrity or a national figure has no right to commit a crime. Therefore, citizens and society must raise their voices for justice for rape and sexual assault victims. To prevent sexual violence and support those affected by it, society must promote a culture of respect and accountability, establish strong support systems for survivors, and hold perpetrators accountable.

Following the recent general elections, minor political parties entered the arena with the aim of securing a role in governance, capitalizing on the current electoral framework where no single party can secure a parliamentary majority. Despite initial anticipation of an ideological shift when the Maoist party engaged in the peace process and formed an alliance with the CPN-UML, the coalition fell short of such expectations. Nepali politics is viewed by analysts as being at a critical juncture due to governmental instability, rampant corruption and policy dilemmas. While Nepali people hoped for a lean and efficient administration under democracy, political entities in Nepal failed to deliver on this promise. Instead, the existing governmental structure appeared more bureaucratic and financially burdensome to Nepali taxpayers. Nepal witnessed one of its weakest coalition governments in recent memory, with governing partnerships shifting thrice within a year, reminiscent of past ruthless practices and corrupt leadership.

Even purportedly new political entities became entangled, directly or indirectly, in this murky landscape. Nepali people must understand that a new political party does not inherently equate to moral or ethical integrity. Without ethical leadership, genuine renewal cannot occur. The proliferation of new political parties poses a challenge to Nepal’s democracy and the establishment of a stable governance framework. Hence, analysts must scrutinize emerging trends, including the involvement of Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) in Nepal’s current government.

Analysts assert that RSP emerged from popular sentiments and crowd-driven notions rather than a coherent political ideology. When a political entity originates from populism, it may lack a clear political agenda, principles and policies. Parties’ lack of principles can undermine democracy, as voters may struggle to access accurate information to make informed choices. Furthermore, in the absence of political principles, a party risks becoming the personal domain of its leader, sidelining the interests and agendas of others. Populist ideas have the potential to conceal decision-making processes and mislead the public. Without a solid political ideology, populist agendas may clash with the nation's established plans and policies, resulting in misguided policy decisions. Populist leaders often adhere strictly to their scripted agendas, sidelining other parties from meaningful discussions.

Under CPN (Maoist Center) Chair Pushpa Kamal Dahal-led ruling alliance, RSP has emerged as a significant political force, bearing substantial responsibility and accountability to the Nepali people. However, numerous uncertainties linger regarding the RSP and its leadership. Establishing a political party necessitates several key components: a clear political ideology, organizational structure, committed party members and integrity. Regrettably, RSP lacks all four elements. A robust political ideology serves as the cornerstone of a democratic political party, providing the framework for policy formulation. The absence of such an ideology and principles has downgraded RSP to a populist entity born from popular sentiment rather than sound political doctrine. In a democracy, people reserve the right to inspect their political leaders, and governments and political parties must remain answerable to the people. However, RSP has been quick to silence dissent and avoid pertinent inquiries, raising concerns about its commitment to transparency and accountability.

RSP lacks a robust political infrastructure, functioning more as a non-profit organization where social activists deflect blame onto others without assuming responsibility themselves. Examination of their core leadership reveals a predominance of individuals from elite backgrounds or higher economic layers, primarily residing in urban centers. RSP primarily focuses its activities on urban politics, capitalizing on the ability to amass crowds. The party’s president, Rabi Lamichhane, signals from a media background, using his platform to criticize the government and spread misinformation rather than addressing genuine issues. Lamichhane has adopted a quasi-superhero persona, presenting himself as capable of resolving all challenges through seemingly magical means. Despite his involvement in numerous controversies and disputes within Nepali media and politics, no conclusive resolution has been reached under legal frameworks. Major political parties have exploited Lamichhane for their gains, not bothering to address controversies surrounding him.

Nepal’s major political parties have diligently instructed their members on political ideology and beliefs, yet RSP has faltered in establishing a coherent political ideology and grassroots organization. Instead, RSP relies on amassing followers from the masses without implementing any effective control mechanism. It’s common knowledge that unguided crowds can turn toward chaos and pose a threat to democracy by disregarding laws and regulations. Therefore, RSP must evolve into a responsible democratic political entity, addressing unanswered questions and being accountable to the public. The rise of populism and crowd-driven politics worldwide over the past decade, exemplified by movements like the Mega Republicans in America and radical Hindu nationalists in India, poses a significant risk to democratic institutions and norms. Any embrace of nationalist radicalism could jeopardize Nepal’s overall development and its democratic foundation.

Integrity stands as a crucial pillar for the advancement of democracy. Unfortunately, all political parties in Nepal have fallen short of maintaining integrity to some extent, leading to results of large-scale corruption and conflicts of interest. Despite positioning itself as a viable political alternative, RSP cannot afford to emulate the shortcomings of established parties. Instead, it must exemplify honesty, moral integrity and ethical standards. Regrettably, RSP’s president, Lamichhane, has repeatedly failed to demonstrate honesty and ethical conduct, particularly in relation to an illegal passport case and a cooperative fraud. Moreover, his selection of ministries directly linked to these controversies highlights a clear conflict of interest, further underscoring his lack of integrity. Various incidents involving RSP leaders in controversial situations have been concealed by the party, weakening trust among the people and worsening damage to Nepal’s democratic fabric. When those claiming to offer an alternative view regard themselves as above scrutiny and disregard pertinent questions, public trust is undermined, leading to further harm to Nepal’s democracy.

The prevailing challenges to democracy around the world encompass populism, crowd-centric politics and leaders who undermine established institutions while advocating against traditional governance. Populist figures prioritize personal interests and political gains, deflecting blame onto others for every issue. In the Nepali context, most populist leaders prioritize attaining power rather than fostering long-term economic agendas and developmental strategies. The surge of crowd-centric politics stems from the failures of conventional political parties, which have either failed to address or neglected the people’s priorities. Regardless of the underlying reasons, populism presents a significant danger to democracy and governance, underscoring the importance of responsible political entities and leadership dedicated to nurturing liberal democratic values and fostering trust within society. Crowd-centric organizations can’t serve as a sustainable solution for Nepal’s long-term development. Instead, there is an urgent need to establish a streamlined government alongside an effective electoral system.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author's sole responsibility and do not reflect the views of any organization with which the author is professionally affiliated

For decades, the internal political landscape of Nepal has been ruined by fragility and political discord. Despite the nation’s yearning for peace, prosperity and democratic governance, political leaders have consistently fallen short in addressing these fundamental aspirations. Among the political entities in Nepal, the Nepali Congress stands as one of the oldest and ostensibly the most committed to principles of liberal democracy, the rule of law, human rights and freedom. However, it has, regrettably, failed to live up to the expectations of the Nepali populace, who have looked to it for leadership in navigating the country toward a brighter future.

Internal power struggles, personal egos and political polarization have plagued Nepali politics since the democratic movement of the 1990s. Despite being the largest political party, the Nepali Congress has struggled to earn the trust of opposition factions, notably the CPN-UML. Conversely, the CPN-UML has often prioritized power dynamics over the nation-building agenda, further aggravating the challenges facing Nepali democracy. The Nepali Congress must acknowledge its shortcomings and learn from past mistakes to effectively address the evolving needs and challenges confronting the Nepalis. The Nepali Congress must shift its focus toward forging democratic alliances, articulating a comprehensive long-term economic vision and enhancing governance structures.

The ethos of the Nepali Congress, as envisioned by its founder Bishweshwar Prasad Koirala, emphasizes the importance of political ideology in guiding its actions. However, despite being identified as a center-left political party that promotes multiparty democracy, term-based elections, human rights, a free economy, and the rule of law, the Nepali Congress has struggled to consolidate democratic forces and collaborate effectively for national development. Over the past two decades, the Nepali Congress has engaged in alliances with various political entities, including radical Maoists, in its pursuit of governance. Yet, these alliances have often been short-lived, driven by the opportunistic pursuit of power rather than a genuine commitment to the nation’s welfare.

The recent political maneuvers of leaders like Dahal highlight the need for the Nepali Congress to recognize and respond to such instability and opportunism effectively. The Nepali Congress needs to strengthen its internal unity and construct a robust democratic alliance ahead of the forthcoming elections. This requires a clear and coherent communication of the party’s liberal political beliefs to the Nepali people, emphasizing the value of freedom and the obligation of a government that respects individual choices. The Nepali Congress should lead the effort to establish a larger ideological political party by bringing together smaller parties like the National Democratic Party, Madhesi Dals and the Rastriya Swatantra Party. Left-leaning political groups should undertake similar initiatives. This would offer the Nepalis a choice between two major political entities, fostering a stronger and more stable government.

From an economic standpoint, the Nepali Congress has championed a free-market approach, leading to some degree of economic growth. Nevertheless, political instability and socialist rhetoric have significantly hindered Nepal’s economic progress. Furthermore, socialist principles entrenched in Nepal’s constitution have deterred domestic and foreign investors from freely investing in the country. To tackle these systemic and ideological challenges, the Nepali Congress must unveil a pragmatic and sustainable economic agenda that aligns with the aspirations of the Nepali people. This entails avoiding unrealistic pledges and false hopes peddled by competing left-leaning political parties.

Moreover, the Nepali Congress must spearhead discussions on the necessity of a streamlined and efficient government structure. While decentralization, including federalism, is integral to accommodating Nepal’s diverse landscape, the proliferation of bureaucracy poses a significant financial burden on the nation. This is an opportune moment for the Nepali Congress to advocate for a more effective and lean government structure, capable of delivering essential services to the people without undue complexity or financial strain.

Nepali Congress must prioritize ideological clarity, realistic economic policies and efficient governance structures to regain the trust and confidence of the Nepali people. By learning from past mistakes and embracing a vision centered on the nation's well-being, the Nepali Congress can chart a course toward a more prosperous and democratic future for Nepal. Rebuilding trust among the Nepali people is essential for the party to acknowledge the significance of accountability and transparency in governance. Upholding these principles not only enhances public confidence but also promotes good governance and sustainable development. The Nepali Congress’ experiences offer valuable guidance for navigating the complexities of Nepali politics and governance, offering lessons pertinent not only to the party but also to Nepal's broader political arena.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s sole responsibility and do not reflect the views of any organization with which he is professionally affiliated

Nepali leaders frequently express concern about the perils to Nepali democracy from unidentified sources, yet none have explicitly articulated the basis for their apprehension. The political maneuvers diverge from reality, and Nepali people are sick and tired of the leaders from all the political parties, who are still imposing conspiracy theories regarding democracy in Nepal. These leaders persist in imposing outdated notions of political stunts, despite a transformative shift marked by the overthrow of Narayanhiti Palace and the establishment of a new democratic order. The question remains: Why do these self-proclaimed democratic leaders persistently ‘invoke’ threats to our democracy and the rule of law?

These leaders have failed to steer the country with democratic norms and values. Despite Nepal officially discarding the monarchical and autocratic political system and enacting a new constitution in 2015, political leaders have not rekindled their commitment to democratic principles, remaining out of sync with them. Huq and Ginsburg argue that democracy devoid of democrats poses a distinct ethical dilemma, where unelected actors must decide between honoring the preferences of current voters or enabling future voters to make a meaningful democratic choice (2020). Nepal is a stark illustration, with rejected political leaders continuing to influence decision-making processes and governing bodies. The recent appointment of Krishna Prasad Situala to the upper house reflects a non-democratic trend and disregard for the people's mandate. The government appears more focused on retaining power than fortifying democratic institutions and principles, leading to power imbalances among coalition partners and neglect of the voters' mandate.

Nepali voters still grapple with illiteracy, facing challenges in comprehending democratic values and institutional development. Rather than safeguarding democracy, political parties and their leaders exploit this situation as an opportunity to seize power. These self-centric leaders neglect investing resources and efforts in voter education, opting instead to manipulate power through intimidation and vote buying. Presence of corrupt and unethical leaders poses a significant threat to the progress of democratic institutions and the empowerment of the people. Additionally, leaders across the political spectrum resort to deploying various political tactics to attract voters, often falling short of transparency and honesty. For instance, Nepal’s social welfare program, aiming to provide financial support to the elderly, has drawn criticism from experts. This initiative was implemented without sufficient public discourse and research on its potential outcomes and sustainability.

The prevalence of financial and policy-level corruption in Nepal is alarmingly high. Political parties and their supporters engage in substantial financial expenditures during elections, emerging as a primary catalyst for political corruption. Parties and their leaders frequently misappropriate development budgets intended for societal progress to fund costly election campaigns and appease their constituents. Moreover, a disturbing trend in corruption cases implicates high-ranking political figures. Examples include Nepali Congress leader and former minister Bal Krishna Khad, CPN-UML leader Top Bahadur Rayamajhi, Maoist leader Krishna Bahadur Mahara, and former finance minister Janardhan Sharma, all directly implicated in various corruption-related incidents. This poses a significant threat to Nepali democracy, the rule of law, and the moral fabric of society.

In his book “The End of History and the Last Man,” Francis Fukuyama posits that liberal democracy, characterized by a focus on human rights, regular and free elections, and adherence to the rule of law, represents the ultimate stage in the evolution of human history. According to Fukuyama, the path to success for underdeveloped countries involves embracing freer markets and globalization. However, Nepal lacks the foundational tenets of democracy, such as freedom, human rights, and the rule of law.

The 2022 index from Freedom House reveals that Nepal is classified as partly free, scoring 57 out of 100 on the global freedom index. 

Nepal performs poorly in preventing corruption, government transparency, ensuring due process in civil and criminal matters, implementing equal treatment policies, safeguarding individual rights to equal opportunity, and preserving freedom. The government has fallen short of upholding democratic norms and principles for its people. In the light of these shortcomings, the question arises: Why do leaders persistently claim that democracy is under threat, even when they are in power?

The straightforward explanation lies in their apprehension of facing repercussions from the public due to their inability to govern with integrity and uphold the rule of law. Their anxiety is also fueled by the deceptive pledges they have made. Although Nepal theoretically operates as a democratic republic, its leaders often resort to autocratic practices, posing a more significant threat to democracy and the rule of law than external factors. Shifting blame toward foreign entities and passive political interest groups won’t contribute to political stability. It is the responsibility of political parties to fortify democratic institutions and principles, fostering peace and prosperity in Nepal. The primary threat to democracy originates from within the political parties, and their ineffective governance should not be attributed to unidentified elements.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s sole responsibility and do not reflect the views of any organization with which the author is professionally affiliated