Submit your Article

What happens when governments are no longer held accountable? That question, in my view, cuts straight to the heart of nearly every crisis we see around the world today—whether it’s corruption, social injustice, or growing inequality. And while some may see accountability as just a technical concept or a legal matter, I believe it’s something far more fundamental: it’s about trust, responsibility, and the kind of future we want to build.

I’ve often thought about what it truly means to live under a government that is answerable to its people. It’s easy to take the idea for granted especially in countries that hold regular elections or where democratic institutions still exist on paper. But real accountability isn’t about just holding an election every few years. It’s about what happens in between those elections. It’s about whether public officials serve the people or simply serve themselves.

The cost of no accountability

When those in power are not questioned, challenged, or monitored, they begin to drift away from the interests of the public. In many places, this has led to blatant corruption. Public money meant for essential services like education, healthcare, or clean water vanishes into private bank accounts. Mega-projects are announced with fanfare, only to be left half-finished while communities continue to suffer.

I’ve personally seen this: roads that are “renovated” every election cycle but never actually improved, schools that lack basic supplies while the education budget is reported as fully spent, and public offices that operate more like private clubs. These things don't just happen by accident. They happen when no one is held responsible.

It’s not just about money—it’s about life. When governments ignore accountability, it’s often the most vulnerable who pay the highest price. Poor governance during natural disasters, pandemics, or economic downturns leaves millions without support. And when people protest or speak out, they are often met with violence, censorship, or imprisonment.

The slow death of democracy

One of the most dangerous outcomes of a government without accountability is the slow erosion of democracy. When politicians are not held to the promises they make, and when institutions like the courts or the press are silenced or co-opted, citizens begin to feel powerless. And when people lose faith in the system, democracy weakens from the inside.

Democracy is not a self-sustaining machine. It requires constant maintenance and accountability is the oil that keeps its gears running smoothly. Without it, we don’t just risk mismanagement. We risk authoritarianism.

Why we must care

Some may say, “Well, what can one person do?” Honestly, I’ve asked myself the same thing. In the face of systemic corruption or abuse, individual actions can feel small. But I believe change begins when people start asking questions. When we demand transparency, when we support investigative journalism, when we vote wisely and stay informed, we contribute to a culture of accountability.

We also need to remember that governments work for us. That means they should fear betraying the public trust, not the other way around.

Accountability isn’t just about punishing bad behavior, it’s also about encouraging good governance. When leaders know they are being watched and evaluated, they are more likely to act in the public’s best interest. They become more transparent, more honest, and more focused on long-term progress rather than short-term gain.

A vision for the future

Imagine a society where government budgets are published in full and explained clearly. A society where journalists are protected, public meetings are open and well-attended, and whistleblowers are praised. That’s what accountability looks like. Of course, no government will ever be perfect. Mistakes will happen. But the difference between a responsible government and a reckless one lies in whether it owns up to those mistakes or buries them. Accountability is what makes the difference between a system that learns and improves, and one that decays in silence.

To some, this might all sound idealistic, but I don’t think so. Demanding accountability is simply part of being an engaged, responsible citizen. If we don’t speak up, if we don’t question those in power, we end up becoming complicit in our own decline. Governments without accountability don’t just fail, they fail us. And that’s why it matters. Because when leaders stop answering to the people, the people end up paying the price. It’s time we stop accepting silence and start demanding answers.

Amisha Baniya

Kathmandu School of Law

As a writer, I will continue to write as long as the fight concerns the public and the country. I often wondered what if one day every social media app and site were to shut down? This was just me being curious, not knowing the larger consequences. Today, however, such contemplation feels urgent.

As I write this, my eyes shift between the desktop and the window, reflecting on the weight of the present ban imposed by the government on 26 social media apps, including WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram,YouTube, X (formerly Twitter), and LinkedIn.

The official reason: these apps failed to register as per the Social Media Bill tabled this year. The law mandates that social media platforms register themselves with the government, designate a contact person, and appoint a grievance officer to handle complaints. It also allows the government to deny or revoke operation if a platform is considered a threat to national sovereignty, national interest, and social harmony. Additionally, the Supreme Court has ordered both domestic and foreign social media platforms to be listed with the government to allow monitoring of “unwanted” content. 

This isn’t the first instance that Nepal has imposed such restrictions. In 2023, TikTok was banned, only to be lifted after its registration issue was resolved.

For years, Nepal had been showing improvement in the global index of freedom of speech and e-governance. But with bans on social media platforms, the country could slide down the index, tarnishing our reputation in the international arena. 

We are well aware of how social media has deeply shaped our lives. From connecting people across distances to educating minds, creating opportunities for employment, and even serving as a source of income—it has, in many ways, become another world we inhabit.

As a graduate of media studies and a current student of international relations, I understand the government’s concerns. Sure, sovereignty cannot be compromised. Yet, I also question whether such a sweeping ban is the right decision. There should be a logical and a diplomatic route to approach things that are of public concern.

Now, with the ban curtailing the very basics of our fundamental rights—the right to freedom of expression (17), in this case the freedom to choose a medium, to express, and to be seen; the right to communication (19), the freedom to speak out; and the right to information (27), the freedom to access public knowledge—I am left to wonder about the right to social justice (42), which demands ‘inclusive participation and equitable opportunities’. 

Our constitution clearly states the sovereignty and state authority of Nepal shall be vested in the Nepalis. So, without the people’s fundamental rights, sovereignty itself loses meaning. So the real question remains: is the latest ban on social media really about safeguarding sovereignty or is it a form of media censorship. 

As Nepal is set to graduate from least developed country (LDC) status in 2026, the stakes are even higher. Restrictive policies could undermine Nepal’s credibility, discouraging potential investors, international partners, and stakeholders. 

What we need is foresight and transparency in our laws and policies. As a citizen, we all must speak truth to power.

Gen Z, the so-called 'digital natives’, live with phones in their hands and Wi-Fi at their finger tips. Phones are sold as empowerment devices—on tap information, entertainment, and worldwide connectivity. Yet, there is a tougher reality beneath the shiny screen.

A Dec 2024 dcdx report indicates GenZ spends an average of 7 hours, 22 minutes, and 43 seconds per day on phones, typically at the expense of in-person interactions. As proponents argue phones make life more convenient and connected, mounting evidence demonstrates they're quietly eroding GenZ’s focus, relationships, and wellbeing.

Thesis: As mobile phones keep us more connected than ever before, they may also erode GenZ’s focus, relationships, and wellbeing, thereby creating a generation trapped in a cycle of distraction, loneliness, and worry fueled by ubiquitous digital overstimulation.

Phones destroy attention and productivity

Supporters argue smartphones increase efficiency by placing information at GenZ’s fingertips. But the truth is quite the opposite. The dcdx study (2024) reported that GenZ spends more than 7 hours a day on phones, with TikTok (3 hours, 38 minutes per week) and Instagram (3 hours, 56 minutes) taking the lead. Such sites are designed to capture attention with infinite scrolls and dopamine bursts.

A 2023 University of Michigan study attested excessive mobile use is associated with weaker working memory and sustained attention, especially among teens (Wilmer et al., 2023). Instead of enhancing productivity, phones fragment attention, with GenZ opening a device an average of 154 times per day (dcdx, 2024), rendering deep work all but impossible.

Phones disrupt real social skills

They call fans ‘connected’ thanks to phones, but the connections are shallowly measured in likes, emojis, or short texts. The 2024 Pew Research Center survey indicates that 46 percent of teens are online ‘almost constantly’, with 58 percent on TikTok at social gatherings often ‘phubbing’ (ignoring people for phones). While 80 percent indicate that phones help friendships, 42 percent recognize that they disrupt learning social skills like empathy and listening (Pew, 2024). On the other hand, older adults (30+) report less phubbing, and 52 percent of 50+ report that phones ruin group discussions (Pew, 2023). Overusing digital communication renders GenZ less competent in face-to-face communication, a deficiency employers find in younger workers more and more.

Phones ruin mental health

Admirers cite phones’ mental health resources—meditation apps, therapy websites, or peer support. The same phones, though, fuel the crises they purportedly cure. The CDC (2023) approximated that 57 percent of teenage girls and 29 percent of teenage boys experience persistent sadness or hopelessness, and social media is a significant factor. The dcdx report (2024) associates excessive screen time with loneliness since 73 percent of GenZ feel isolated despite having constant ‘connectivity’. An additional 2024 Harvard Medical School review contributes that night-time screen usage disrupts circadian rhythms and increases risks of depression and anxiety (Harvard Health Publishing, 2024). Phones, which are presented as solutions, are increasingly the cause of problems.

Phones disrupt learning and work

Technology enthusiasts claim that phones prepare GenZ for technology careers. Unrestricted use, however, cancels learning and productivity. In a 2023 meta-analysis by the University of Cambridge, phone bans at school raised test scores by 6–8 percent, especially among lower-performing students (Higgins et al., 2023). Socially, GenZ’s 154 average daily phone pickups (dcdx, 2024) break concentration, with 56 percent of youth admitting phones make them ‘less present’ in the moment (Harmony Healthcare IT, 2025). Despite digital literacy being worth it, constant distraction gnaws away at the discipline needed for professional and academic achievement.

The paradox: Lifeline or trap?

Phones are not inherently evil. They enable GenZ to undertake online learning, launch entrepreneurial ventures, and amplify social causes. To others, they're a lifeline—connecting marginalized voices or providing mental health support. But the warped relationship with devices turns empowerment into entrapment. The Atlantic’s 2024 analysis reveals GenZ spends only 67 minutes per day with friends in person, down from 2 hours prior to the smartphone (Twenge & Haidt, 2024).

Who’s in charge of whom?

The debate is not about phones’ utility—they are sure to be potent. It is about control: GenZ controlling phones or phones controlling GenZ? Unchecked, tools meant to unify and empower will continue to chip away at concentration, resolve, and bonds. GenZ’s revolution won’t be spearheaded by the next app—it’ll be spearheaded by reclaiming their attention through actual action: setting limits on screen time (used by 22 percent of GenZ, as measured by dcdx), having phone-free zones in school or at home (endorsed by 81 percent of teens, as reported by Pew), and prioritizing in-person interaction.

If Gen-Z is to thrive, they will need to learn to log off—not for a finite period, but forever, in a future in which they, rather than their devices, are the masters.

Political instability, once perceived as distant geopolitical threats, has become a disruptive force shaping everyday realities, rising prices, fluctuating job prospects, and uncertain entrepreneurial environments. In 2025, with an increasingly fragmented global order, the nexus between geopolitics and economics is undeniable. Decisions made in Washington, Brussels, or Beijing may seem remote, but their repercussions ripple into nations like Nepal, influencing consumer prices, employment patterns, and business viability.

For decades, globalization facilitated the liberal movement of goods, capital, and services. However, recent disruptions such as trade wars, sanctions, and cross-border investment restrictions have undermined that stability. For instance, the 2025 tariff escalation between the United States and China destabilized international supply chains, forcing companies to either absorb higher logistics costs or pass them onto consumers. These global shifts are reflected locally higher import prices and delayed access to essential technologies impact Nepalese households and businesses alike.

The broader macroeconomic impact is staggering. Political and Economic volatility has already eroded over $320bn in global corporate profits. The World Bank (2024) projects that continued geopolitical instability could reduce global GDP by two percent over five years equating to over $2trn. Corporations, facing earnings declines, are responding by freezing hiring, withdrawing from emerging markets, and redesigning business models to hedge against policy unpredictability.

This creates a hostile environment for job seekers and entrepreneurs in countries like Nepal. Risk-averse global investors hesitate to fund startups in politically fragile environments. According to McKinsey & Company (2025), 80 percent of global supply chain leaders have begun regionalizing operations to mitigate geopolitical risk, a trend that could bypass Nepal unless it strengthens domestic infrastructure and governance.

Furthermore, evolving legal and regulatory frameworks present additional challenges. Countries are instituting laws that restrict foreign ownership or control of strategic technologies, complicating cross-border business operations. As one global legal expert remarked, “Geopolitics is the new GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation.),” referencing the complexity of navigating geopolitical compliance as per the news media. For Nepalese youth seeking global opportunities, this means more bureaucratic red tape and fewer international openings.

Nepal, though geographically distant from global epicenters, remains vulnerable to these external shocks. Domestically, persistent political instability exacerbates the situation. Since its democratic transition in 2008, Nepal has witnessed 14 different governments, averaging one administration every 14 months. This political churn stymies policy continuity and deters investor confidence (CESIF, 2025). At the 2025 Kantipur Economic Summit, local business leaders cited high taxes, bureaucratic inertia, and inconsistent regulatory enforcement as key barriers to growth. Foreign direct investment (FDI) pledges for 2024 stood at Rs 56bn, yet only 35 percent of that materialized into actual capital inflows.

Migration trends further underscore Nepal’s economic fragility. The outflow of youth has intensified, with over 700,000 Nepalis departing for employment abroad in FY 2023/24 alone (Department of Foreign Employment, 2024). While remittances stabilize household consumption, they signify a loss of human capital crucial for national development. Youth unemployment remains alarmingly high at 19.2 percent (International Labour Organization, 2023), fueling this exodus.

Infrastructure bottlenecks further hinder growth. Flagship projects like the Nijgadh International Airport remain stalled due to environmental and bureaucratic disputes. Nepal’s poor ranking 111th out of 132 countries in the 2024 Global Innovation Index (WIPO, 2024) illustrates the policy and infrastructural deficits throttling innovation. Despite its growing tech-savvy population, Nepal lacks the ecosystem to support digital entrepreneurship or attract global investors.

Corruption, opaque regulations, and arbitrary enforcement discourage local enterprise. As per the Transparency International 2024 Nepal ranks in 107th position out of 180 countries in its Corruption Perceptions Index. Startups often encounter unpredictable tax regimes and cumbersome approval processes. As one young entrepreneur in Lalitpur recounted, “Investors liked my idea but warned me that Nepal’s political climate is too risky. One even suggested relocating to Bangalore.”

The consequences are visible in everyday life: fewer businesses mean fewer jobs; declining investment translates to limited services and slower income growth.

Yet, amid these challenges, Nepal holds transformative potential. With one of the youngest demographics in South Asia, abundant hydropower reserves, and proximity to India and China, Nepal could become a regional hub for clean energy, digital trade, and ecotourism. The missing link is political coherence and policy continuity.

For MBA students and young professionals, understanding this interplay is critical. Advocacy, informed participation, and institutional engagement are essential. By supporting transparency, economic reform, and democratic accountability, Nepal’s youth can shape a more resilient future. Businesses too must adapt developing agile strategies, risk mitigation mechanisms, and local market depth to survive in this volatile environment.

Global instability is not an abstract concept. It affects your startup potential, your career trajectory, and your nation's competitiveness. The question is not whether Nepal will be impacted but how it will respond.

Anupama Paudel 

Anisha Shakya

MBA (Global Business)

SAIM College