Submit your Article

The appeal for a directly elected president is easily comprehensible. It is an intuitively appealing and credible notion that people deserve to directly elect their leader in a democratic process. And in principle, that is something I agree with. 

As I’m contemplating my next paragraphs of this article, I’m acutely aware that the burden to prove that people should not get to directly vote their leader rests with people advocating against the directly elected executive, rather than the other side having the obligation to prove its merits. Likewise, as a member of GenZ myself, I share the discontent with the never-ending cast of unstable governments that my generation and the generation before me have. I am mindful of our current and past political predicaments rife with instability and governments riven by inter- and intra-party disputes. Potential stability this could bring does have people dreaming of a uniform government and policies that would bring much-needed investment, jobs, and prosperity.

Well, as always, the devil is in the details and an annoying thing called practical reality.

First, on a principal level. Imagine a powerful executive, say that of the US. The president has the power to veto bills and sign them, sign executive orders, call the shots during a war, grant pardons, and so on. It follows logically that the burden of proof also lies to a great extent on concentrating so much power on one individual. People with competence and integrity do not always get to the top, and even if such people are on top, it doesn’t mean they are demi-gods who can make perfect decisions all the time. So why should the whims of individuals decide matters of great importance? Remember Trump’s handling of Covid-19 in the first term or his stepping on every conceivable democratic norm in the current term? If Trump seems like an extreme and anomalous example, note that President Biden, before him, freshly into the office, branded with the “nice guy who is set to defend democracy” image, unilaterally decided to send bombing planes to Syria. 

Of course, this is not to claim that the parliamentary system is a paragon of rationality and accountability, but the fact that discourse has to happen publicly in Parliaments, under the public’s watchful eyes, creates incentives to take more integrity-laced decisions. It is likely that if there had been a publicly visible discussion about, say, the Biden administration’s bombing targets in Syria. i.e., a decision to drop expensive bombs, with ultra-expensive planes, to destroy priceless innocent lives, decisions would be different. The public has the right to scrutinize as many decisions and policy discussions as possible, to the extent that they want. Also, the process of discourse itself is likely to result in better chances of yielding more rational decisions. 

In many cases, these executives are voted in by narrow margins. So, in a country where a President gains 51 percent of votes to get elected, the 49% gets no representation in the share of executive power. While in the parliamentary system, minority parties can form coalition governments and gain some ministries, they are shut down completely from the executive system, especially under something like the spoils system in the US. This is likely to disproportionately harm minority groups, who have a lesser chance of having a member of their group being elected as the national figurehead. 

Similarly, this concentration of executive power poses a direct threat to democracy if the executive has immense influence and is seeking to break free from the reins of democracy. This has been vividly visible in countries like Russia, Turkey, Hungary, the USA, etc, which have suffered democratic backsliding. Likewise, in Nepal, where it will take a while for democratic gains to get cemented, there was a de facto concentration of executive power when the interests of former President Bidhya Bhandari and former Prime Minister KP Oli were aligned. Two Supreme Court decisions saved our infantile democratic practice, but the flashing danger lights were for everyone to see. Well, after coming to power again, the naked authoritarian tendencies of Oli were visible again in gunning down protesters and littering the streets with blood. The factors that led to Oli deciding to resign were likely multifaceted. But being in a coalition government, where Congress and other coalition partners were facing tremendous pressure to resign, must have played a part in Oli’s calculus that further repression would not be possible without these coalition partners buckling under pressure. So, the fact that he needed the support of members of parliamentary members of his own party, who, despite mostly being supine to Oli, must have been worrying about their own political futures after the brutal repression of the protests caused the public support for their party to nosedive. 

Of course, I hear the chorus saying that Oli wouldn’t have been elected if we had a directly elected executive. Probably, but the problem goes beyond Oli as an individual, as there have been countless examples of initially popular leaders going on to reveal and develop authoritarian tendencies. The very definition of dictatorship is the concentration of power without checks and balances. So, of course, reducing the supervision of checks and balances, which is primarily a legislative function (it not only elects or controls the executive branch but confirms judiciary appointments in most democracies), can be the bedrock of budding authoritarianism. A strong parliament, in control of the executive branch, acts as a bulwark to such despotism as power in this most powerful body is divided among hundreds of MPs. Again, this isn’t to imply that democratic backsliding isn’t possible in a parliamentary process, but rather, more difficult to do so due to this dissemination of power. 

The other important consideration would be the impact on the election process itself. The character, quirks, personal beliefs, and relationships of the Presidential candidates fill large chunks of political columns that ideally should be filled with policy discussions. This prevails in the parliamentary system too, but becomes more prominent during candidate-centric elections rather than party-centric elections. During candidate-focused elections, qualities that gain preponderance are charisma and oratory skills; qualities that people wrongly value in political leaders. 

Likewise, this is likely to foster racism and battering of minorities more. In all political systems, an effective way to gain a devoted following is by appealing to and fostering prejudices. Sadly, thanks to a physiological phenomenon called negativity bias (things of a more negative nature have a greater effect on one’s psychological state and processes than positive things), people are attuned to respond with greater emotional intensity to things like fears, prejudice, anger, etc. This means that by arousing or responding to people’s prevailing feelings of particular groups, usually minorities, power-hungry rulers can garner a devoted following. This is a tremendously common phenomenon: Trump’s appeal to fears of a shrinking white majority, Modi’s incitement of fear against Muslims, and the Burmese military’s demonizing and cleansing Rohingya by portraying them as perpetrators of all evil are among the countless examples of this. The sheer effectiveness of this means it has been used by rulers and wannabe rulers of all shades and systems. However, there is an added incentive to use this heinous tactic for directly electable presidential candidates. While political parties have an incentive to garner the broadest possible constituency to garner a larger number of seats, presidential candidates can effectively get away with winning at best 51 percent of the votes. This is the reason why Trump eagerly chose to ride the tide of white nativist fears, despite alienating a broader sector of minorities. Colored people weren’t his targeted constituents. 

Spare a thought about how this could potentially play out in an ethnically diverse country like Nepal with low education and literacy rates. In a country where our brothers in Tarai have been portrayed by the ruling elites for centuries as “Indians” and “dhotis” and have these notions firmly hammered in the sentiments of the general public. Where prejudice and stereotypes exist regarding various ethnicities and castes. Where reactionary voices used the incident of a Dalit woman not getting rent as a platform to question affirmative action. Where wide-ranging frustration, unemployment, poverty, patriarchy, and deeply rooted social injustices prevail, leaving a fertile ground for a wannabe charismatic dictator. 

So what would be a solution then? Surely, after the GenZ movement, the general populace is in no mood to digest another musical chair of endless government change, revolving around a few party heads?

There could be solutions that have been tried before, with a few innovations added from our side. We could have something similar to the Swiss model, where a group of seven leaders is elected as co-presidents or members of the federal council. Their majority decision, four or more out of seven, could be considered as a decision from the executive.  If a nominal head of state is needed, these seven co-presidents would take turns being so, with each member being a head for the duration of their total mandate divided by seven. We could add further tweaks to this by mandating proportional representation from marginalized groups and gender in this council of co-presidents. 

If we absolutely want one directly elected head of state, assuming that constitutional change could be made,  their powers could still be tempered by having a directly elected executive prime minister, with the president, elected by the parliament, still remaining the nominal head of state. In those cases, power for strong measures like declaring an emergency and dissolving the parliament(insofar as permitted by the conditions described by the constitution) would require the approval of both,  and in such situations, the authority of the president could be extended to make an active judgment, beyond rubber-stamping decisions. 

But even in the situation where we end up with a single directly elected executive, we should be cognizant of its potential consequences and must have our systems of checks and balances fortified. Provisions like the directly elected executive not having the power to dissolve the parliament, needing to defer to the parliament for major actions like declaring emergencies or mobilizing the military, are a must. There are strict provisions of control of the purse by the parliament, as well as requirements for approval of both chambers of parliament for appointments across the judiciary and other governmental agencies like CIAA, NRB, etc. This is not an exhaustive list by any means, but an attempt to nudge the conversation towards this direction, instead of potentially sleepwalking towards it. 

So, given that concentration of power is a tremendous risk, more so in a fragile democracy, how and to what extent we should be disseminating democratic power to prevent this has been and is likely to be a pressing issue for quite a long time. While we are on this matter, it should be remembered that expanding democracy should go way beyond electing a head of state, and even elections themselves. Yes, we should absolutely advocate for more direct democracy, more referendums on federal levels, and more participatory democracy, as well as referendums on local levels. Even more than that, we should be having conversations about truly disseminating economic and political clout by giving workers more power over their workplaces and the generated revenue, and by giving communities control over their local resources. The most important check on concentrated power would likely be a citizenry equipped with its own economic power, platforms, resources, and economic as well as political incentives to engage politically. How, if, and when it would be possible would be a different debate, beyond the scope of this article. But what I do seek to implore through this article is to orient our conversations in that direction, instead of, or at least a lot more than, conversing about characters and peculiarities of political parties and their leaders.

The author graduated from Fudan University with a master’s degree in World Economy

Generation Z, those born between 1997 and 2012, is entering the workplace with different expectations that contrast with those of the previous generations.

Recognizing their aspirations is essential for understanding the future of various professions. Born into a world of constant change, their voice reveals what today’s workplace must become. 

According to the study published in the ‘International Journal for Research Trends and Innovation’, GenZ seeks new opportunities and mentorship in their job. They expect feedback to be frequent and in real-time, reflecting their desire for immediate recognition, growth, and self-improvement. Twenty-seven-year-old Asmita Rai left her job three months earlier due to an unhealthy workplace environment and the challenges she faced. She says a supportive workplace environment helps promote mutual understanding among colleagues. Constant advice and healthy relationships contribute to maintaining a flexible and productive work atmosphere. 

A finding from the ‘International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology’ shows an understanding of the factors motivating GenZ through the application of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Using Maslow’s theory, it has been found that GenZ is motivated when an organization provides a positive and open place that values their efforts, recognizes the essence of their work, and offers opportunities for learning and development. 

Moreover, mental health has also become a central concern for GenZ. Krisha Giri, a twenty-one-year-old from Kathmandu, acknowledges the need for workplaces to prioritize mental health, emphasizing the significance of fulfilling professional life. Research from Johns Hopkins University supports this perspective, revealing that GenZ employees want improved access to mental health services, enhanced knowledge of mental well-being, and empathic leadership. 

Ernst & Young (EY) studies further note that amid the last decade of economic crisis, social injustices, and a global pandemic, GenZ expects something else to deteriorate. In the context of Nepal, GenZ has encountered constant political instability, injustice, and favoritism everywhere. Shreeju Dhakal, a twenty-six-year-old from Kathmandu, asserts that GenZ wants their future to be the one that advocates for social causes. “After seeing all the violence and demands of people today,  it is important to respect human needs and desires,” Dhakal adds. 

She claims that GenZ wants a profession that drives for structural reform, promotes accountability, and fosters an inclusive policy-making process. Despite frustration, young people remain confident and hopeful about the future, expecting that change is necessary.

According to Deloitte’s 2025 survey, for many GenZs and millennials, their work is closely tied to their identity. More than forty percent said their primary job is central to their identity, second only to their friends and family. The findings show that cultural activities like reading, listening to music, playing, and seeing performances also hold immense significance. “Employment is deeply connected to self-worth, and without this, many people face difficulties in securing a recognized position in a society,” says Pasang Sherpa, a twenty-year-old youth. 

Sherpa says the workplace should uphold meritocracy for equity. This leads employees to work better as their efforts are being recognized. He adds, “A  job is important to youth as it concerns personal growth, and motivates them to drive their career forward.”

Deloitte survey further shows that, while education is generally valid, nearly thirty-one percent of GenZ respondents in the survey say they are opting to explore alternative paths, such as vocational qualifications and apprenticeships, which may offer more skills-based learning, as well as a lower financial burden. GenZ values the opportunity for continuous learning and development at work, but some question how the education system prepares them for the job market. 

In Nepal, Bimala Tamang, a nineteen-year-old from Kathmandu, believes the education system should prepare young people to thrive in the job market. She points out the importance of practical and vocational training to enhance skills. However, she also sees the education process, which focuses more on the theoretical aspect and calls for timely updates. 

Blending passion with profession is another rising priority among GenZ. Simran Ghimire from Kathmandu shares that her profession should blend her curiosity, which brings her pleasure. Having a keen interest in painting since early childhood, she takes it as a medium that pleases her soul. Ghimire adds, “For me, my profession should be a medium to ease my problem to enjoy myself at work”. 

Ghimire also notes that each workplace should be flexible, where employees can seek solace. Supporting this, a study in the ‘International Journal of Science and Research’ suggests that organizations must prioritize hybrid work models and flexible scheduling to meet GenZ’s expectations for a work-life balance. 

Meanwhile, eighteen-year-old Furba Lama sees immense potential in the digital platform.  He adds, “Content creation can provide a platform to me, where I want to share Nepal’s culture, food, and place for a wider audience”.

Viewing the workplace module through a GenZ lens reveals a generation driven to work by its values, purpose, curiosity, and creativity. Rather than simply seeking a job, they look for work that aligns with their hope and identity, which becomes powerful for personal changes.  

The Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) is preparing to hold its general convention on Dec 13–15 to elect a new leadership. The CPN-UML’s  internal dynamics are especially tense this year, as incumbent Chairperson KP Sharma Oli, who has been politically shaken by the recent GenZ movement, is seeking a third consecutive term. Though Oli had signaled before Sept 8–9 protests that he would lead the party for another five years, the large-scale demonstrations and the killing of 19 youths has severely dented his standing both inside and outside the party.

A number of senior UML leaders have urged Oli to retire from the party chairmanship, arguing that he should take moral responsibility for the deaths that occurred under his premiership. Yet, Oli remains defiant. He insists that he was removed from government not because of his governance failures, but because of his uncompromising “nationalist stance.” This claim once again reveals a familiar pattern: Oli’s consistent use of nationalism as a political tool to consolidate his power, deflect criticism and project himself as a defender of Nepal’s sovereignty. Inside the communist party, there is a tendency to create real, perceived or even fabricated enemies in order to convince cadres that they should focus on fighting these threats rather than questioning or changing the leadership. This is exactly what KP Oli is doing right now.

Oli’s nationalism card

‘Nationalism’ has long been a potent currency in Nepali politics, especially within communist parties, which frequently frame internal dissent as externally manipulated. After joining mainstream politics, it was Maoist Chairperson Pushpa Kamal Dahal successfully weaponized ‘nationalism.’ When challenged by senior leader Baburam Bhattarai, Dahal often accused him of being influenced by foreign actors, particularly India. After losing power in 2008, Dahal blamed India for orchestrating his downfall and launched a political campaign centered on “national independence.” This narrative helped him maintain his grip on the Maoist party at a time when his leadership was under pressure.

Oli has followed a similar path since coming to power after 2015. He rose to national prominence during the 2015 Indian blockade, portraying himself as a staunch nationalist resisting external interference. His government’s issuance of a new political map of Nepal in 2020 further cemented his image as a leader willing to challenge powerful neighbors.

Internal challenge

For this year’s General Convention, Oli faces a more organized challenger than in previous conventions. His deputy, Ishwar Pokhrel, backed strongly by former President Bidya Devi Bhandari, has announced his candidacy for party chairman. Pokhrel’s camp is significantly stronger than in the 2021 convention, making him the first genuinely competitive candidate against Oli in years. Predictably, Oli’s supporters have begun portraying Pokhrel’s challenge as influenced by external forces. Such accusations are not new: within Nepal’s communist parties, labeling rivals as “foreign agents” is practically a political tradition.  A Facebook post by Shankar Pokhrel on Nov 29, for example, stated: “The country is in crisis, and attacks on nationalist forces continue. In such a situation, firmness in policy and unity in leadership are essential. Let’s move forward—it is possible.”The subtext of the statement is clear: in the name of national unity, Ishwar Pokhrel should withdraw and support Oli. This framing aligns perfectly with the longstanding internal communist practice of marginalizing opponents by presenting them as threats to national interests.

GenZ protests and ‘foreign ploy’

The GenZ protests shook Nepal’s political establishment as thousands of young took to the streets against corruption, unemployment and political stagnation. Instead of acknowledging the domestic roots of the unrest, Oli and his loyalists characterized the protests as foreign-orchestrated, drawing parallels with color revolutions in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Oli has repeatedly argued that his government was targeted by foreign powers because of his policies in favor of nationalism, such as signing the BRI with China. This narrative implies that the protests were an attempt on the part of Western powers ‘to punish him and destabilize the UML.’

Oli’s belief that the GenZ uprising was externally orchestrated rests mostly on rumors and unverified reports. Most Nepalis view the movement as a spontaneous expression of frustration with political instability, chronic corruption and the failure of leaders to deliver meaningful reforms. The attempt to reduce a youth-led domestic uprising to foreign interference seems increasingly detached from public sentiment.

Social media ban and nationalism

One of the major triggers of the GenZ movement was the Oli government’s decision to ban several social media platforms for not registering in Nepal. Oli attempted to justify the move by claiming that these platforms violated Nepal’s sovereignty and refused to comply with national laws. This explanation, framed once again through the lens of nationalism, did little to placate widespread anger. 

Oli’s public defense of controversial businessman Durga Prasai, arrested for inflammatory remarks, further underscored his reliance on the nationalism narrative. Prasai had released a video claiming that Western-funded NGOs were behind the GenZ protests, echoing Oli’s larger narrative of foreign interference. By siding with Prasai, Oli signaled once again that he sees political advantage in promoting the idea of a foreign conspiracy.

Will ‘nationalism’ work again?

UML leaders often boast that their party alone does not compromise on matters of national interest. In previous elections, this rhetoric helped Oli galvanize public support. But this time, the situation appears different. Oli has been raising the issue of foreign intervention behind the GenZ movement for more than two months, yet the narrative has gained little traction. Public sentiment has shifted. Nepalis today are more concerned about corruption, unemployment, inflation and the failure of political leaders to govern effectively. The idea that Nepal’s problems stem from foreign meddling, rather than deep-rooted internal dysfunction, no longer convinces many.  Inside the UML, too, Oli’s nationalist rhetoric appears to be losing its persuasive power. The party rank-and-file recognizes that nationalism has become a convenient cover for resisting internal reforms and maintaining control. With rising dissatisfaction in the organization and the emergence of stronger rival factions, Oli’s grip on the party is not as secure as it once was.

Conclusion

KP Sharma Oli’s use of the term ‘nationalism’ has been a key part of his political identity for nearly a decade. It helped him rise to power, survive internal challenges and present himself as the champion of Nepali sovereignty. But political landscapes evolve, and public patience has limits. Today, with a frustrated younger generation, intensifying intra-party competition, and declining faith in political theatrics, Oli’s nationalism card appears increasingly exhausted. Whether it will still work at the upcoming General Convention remains uncertain, but all signs suggest that its effectiveness is rapidly waning.

It is my pleasure to welcome you today as we celebrate the 54^th anniversary of the founding and establishment of the United Arab Emirates, under this year’s theme “United”. This theme reflects the unity of our society, the strength of our bonds, and the spirit of cooperation and teamwork on which our nation was built since its foundation.

On this day, we remember the journey of an exceptional nation that began with a wise vision and strong will. A journey that made our Union a unique model of progress, development, and advancement. It shaped our present and laid firm foundations for the future, guided by leadership that placed the human being at the center of development and made the prosperity of the nation its constant goal.

This year, we celebrate the Union Day of the UAE under the theme “United,” which also comes at a special moment marked by the announcement of His Highness Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, President of the UAE declaring 2025 as the Year of Community. This reflects our leadership’s deep belief in the ability of citizens and residents to contribute positively to our path of growth, and in strengthening the values of unity and cooperation that have been the foundations of our Union since its establishment.

Over the past decades, the UAE has witnessed major transformations across many sectors—from the economy and sustainable development to space exploration, and from clean energy to artificial intelligence (AI). The UAE has become one of the leading nations that shapes the future immediately without any delay.

These achievements were not just a coincidence. They are the outcome of a clear national vision built on excellence, the wise use of resources, and investment in people and knowledge—making the UAE a global center for innovation, growth, and creativity in many sectors.​​​​​​​

The United Arab Emirates adopts a foreign policy that is balanced, open, and based on dialogue and understanding as key principles in its relations with all countries. The UAE continues its path of building bridges of cooperation and promoting dialogue—values and principles that have guided its foreign policy since the Union was formed, together with respect for good relations, the sovereignty of states, and international law.​​​​​​​

The UAE believes that peace and development are two connected paths toward a better future for all peoples. Through its many initiatives, the UAE works to support humanitarian efforts, strengthen international cooperation, and promote global peace, security, and stability.

On this national occasion, the United Arab Emirates reaffirms its commitment to its steady approach, based on cooperation, openness, and constructive work with various countries and communities, in support of peace, stability, and sustainable development.​​​​​​

The distinguished relations between the UAE and Nepal reflect a deep and strong friendship, built on goodwill, mutual respect, and shared interests. As members of the United Nations, both countries share common perspectives on many global issues, such as climate change, world peace, and combating terrorism.

The UAE always stands with Nepal in difficult situations and constantly seeks to cooperate with and assist the government and people of Nepal during critical situation and natural disasters, such as the 2015 earthquake, the COVID-19 pandemic, and previous floods and landslides.

A large number of Nepalese communities live in the UAE, enjoying life alongside different cultures and peoples in a safe environment. They contribute to the economic growth of both Nepal and the United Arab Emirates.

We look forward to continuing joint efforts to open wider horizons for cooperation in various fields, including renewable energy, tourism, infrastructure, human resource development, and other areas of shared interest.

We would like to express our sincere thanks and appreciation to the government of Nepal for their mutual contribution to strengthening relations between the UAE and Nepal. We also value their continuous efforts to develop the country and graduate from the list of the least developed countries (LDC) by year 2026.​​​​​​​

The speech delivered by Abdulla Alshamsi, Ambassador of UAE to Nepal, at a reception organized to mark UAE’s 54^th Eid Ai Ethad.