Submit your Article

Eighteen months after mass protests toppled the government of long-time prime minister Sheikh Hasina, Bangladesh has sworn in a new elected government led by Tarique Rahman of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP).

At the same time,  Nepal is preparing for parliamentary elections on March 5 amid lingering questions about reform, stability, and the durability of its republican system. Together, the two countries present contrasting pathways in South Asia’s evolving democratic landscape.

Bangladesh’s new government emerged from an unusual democratic exercise: parliamentary elections were held alongside a referendum on constitutional reform. The referendum sought to institutionalize the demands of the 2024 youth-led protest movement, which called for greater accountability, stronger checks and balances, and the depoliticization of state institutions.

With this majority, the government is positioned to pursue constitutional amendments through a proposed constitutional council, potentially reshaping the balance of power among the executive, legislature, and judiciary. Reform priorities are expected to include strengthening electoral credibility, ensuring judicial independence, enhancing transparency, and safeguarding civil liberties. Yet the transition is not without risk. The Awami League was barred from contesting the election, a move that critics warn could fuel political resentment and street mobilization.

In contrast, Nepal heads into elections without having undertaken major reforms demanded by the Sept 8–9 protests, largely driven by GenZ activists. The protests reflected deep frustration with corruption, patronage networks, weak public services, and a perceived lack of accountability across political institutions.

Unlike Bangladesh’s reform-first electoral approach, Nepal  has opted to proceed directly to the polls. Skeptics argue that without pre-election structural changes, the vote may simply reproduce the existing power dynamics. Key public demands—restoring trust in institutions, reinforcing the rule of law, ensuring judicial and legislative independence, and building a merit-based bureaucracy—remain largely aspirational. The challenge for any incoming government will be translating campaign rhetoric into concrete institutional reform.

Nepal’s proportional representation system and fragmented party landscape make a single-party majority unlikely. A hung parliament and coalition government appear the most probable outcome. While coalition politics is familiar terrain in Kathmandu, past alliances have often been unstable, slowing policy implementation and weakening reform momentum. Failure to deliver tangible change could deepen youth disillusionment and embolden anti-establishment forces.

Adding to Nepal’s political complexity is the renewed activism of former monarch Gyanendra Shah. In a recent Democracy Day message, he criticized the electoral process and advocated for the restoration of the monarchy. Domestic reform efforts in both countries will unfold under the watchful eye of international stakeholders. Western governments are closely monitoring commitments to democratic governance, transparency, and anti-corruption. In Nepal, reform-oriented voices within the Nepali Congress and independent leaders such as Balendra Shah have attracted attention for emphasizing accountability and administrative reform.

For Nepal, relations with India remain crucial. The open border, deep economic ties, and longstanding sensitivities over boundary disputes and treaty arrangements make New Delhi a central actor in Kathmandu’s foreign policy calculus. India will be closely watching how the new government approaches unresolved bilateral issues. Simultaneously, engagement with China remains strategically significant. Chinese investment is central to Nepal’s infrastructure and development ambitions, particularly under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). However, expanded Chinese involvement is likely to be scrutinized by India and Western partners, placing Nepal in a familiar geopolitical balancing act.

The Election Commission (EC) is set to use the popular social media platform for election publicity. 

In view of the March 5 elections to the House of Representatives (HoR), the EC has come up with a campaign to create TikTik video messages. 

As informed, the EC is conducting TikTok video message creation competition so as to reach out among the voters with election messages. 

According to the EC, such competition has been advanced for election publicity and voters' education. 

A one-minute TikTok video based on topics such as election code of conduct and voter education has to be created and shared through one's social media. 

Likewise, the TikTok has also been sent to the EC's email by March 1. The EC will award the TikTok with the highest number of viewers among all the TikToks received by the commission. 

The EC will provide first award amounting to Rs 50,000 to the one with the most viewers, Rs 30,000 to the second, and Rs 20,000 to the third along with certificates.

The TikTok videos should be prepared in the context of the House of Representatives election, 2026. 

The videos should be interactive and message-oriented. Priority will be given to videos with original content, audio, and acting, the EC stated. 

The videos should provide general information about the election, need for the election, its importance, correct way to mark the ballot, compliance with the election code of conduct, and information about voters' rights and duties. 

The selection of the best video will be made by independent experts and the Commission, the notice stated. 

Nepal’s major parties have highlighted distinct foreign policy visions in their election manifestos. CPN-UML focuses on sovereign equality, independence, and peaceful relations with all nations, pledging stronger ties with neighbors, labor agreements, foreign investment, and job creation. 

Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) advocates “balanced and dynamic diplomacy,” aiming to turn Nepal from a “buffer state” into a “vibrant bridge” through strategic partnerships with India and China, enhanced connectivity, and development cooperation. Nepali Congress (NC) envisions a sovereign, peaceful, and dignified Nepal, promoting equality, mutual respect, and economic partnerships, while raising Nepal’s global profile through iconic symbols.

 In its election manifesto, UML has said that it is committed to a foreign policy based on respect for sovereign equality, independence, and territorial integrity, and grounded in world peace, coexistence, and friendship with all.  The document says: “We maintain respectful relations with all nations. We respect the sovereignty and independence of all countries and expect similar treatment from others. We believe in sovereign equality. We reject any encroachment or interference against the independence, self-determination, and territorial integrity of any nation.”

It also emphasizes the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, non-alignment, peaceful coexistence, non-interference, mutual understanding, cooperation, and the Five Principles (Panchsheel). According to the manifesto, the party stands firmly against war and in favor of world peace.

The document further says: “We will participate in all efforts inspired by dialogue and goodwill and make thoughtful contributions. Enhancing the dignity and pride of Nepal and the Nepali people is our objective.”

The UML also pledges to continuously strive to further strengthen relations with our neighboring friendly countries, make them more cordial, and enhance mutual cooperation. It reaffirms commitment to the principle of “friendship with all, enmity with none”. “We do not wish harm to any of our neighbors and will not undertake any action that would harm them. We will cooperate with all friendly nations and with international and regional organizations.”

To effectively promote labor diplomacy, the party promises to conclude bilateral labor agreements with all destination countries, including provisions for social security.  The party manifesto also pledges to promote foreign direct investment in productive sectors and increase employment opportunities within Nepal. 

Meanwhile, RSP has emphasized balanced and dynamic diplomacy in its election manifesto.

The document says:  “Placing Nepal’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, and national interest above all, we will adopt a “balanced and dynamic diplomacy” to transform shifting global geopolitics and the rise of neighboring powers into opportunities for Nepal’s development.”

It also pledges to adapt to the strategic interests of neighboring countries and changes in the global balance of power to transform Nepal from a “buffer state” into a “vibrant bridge,” ensuring national interest through trilateral economic partnerships and enhanced connectivity.

The manifesto says that the party will renew the framework of development partnership with India, so that Nepal can benefit from their achievements in the areas such as digital public infrastructure, high-speed, high-quality physical infrastructure, formalization of economy, synergy between productive industries and the service sector, and overall enhancement of state capacity.

With China, RSP pledges to promote the mobilization of concessional financing for the construction of world-class infrastructure, implement state-directed targets and programs for economic and social development, and incorporate exemplary practices of inter-provincial competition as key pillars of partnership. 

In its election manifesto Nepali Congress (NC) says: “We envision Nepal  will be recognized by the international community as a sovereign, peaceful, and dignified nation.” According to the document Nepal’s foreign policy will be grounded in national interest and the principle of sovereign equality. The party states: “Our relationships with neighboring and friendly countries will be based on equality and mutual respect, and such relations will be advanced on the foundation of mutual trust and economic partnership.”

The NC manifesto also promises to make Nepal known to the world as a responsible and respected member, along with national heritages  like Mount Everest, Lumbini, Pashupatinath, and Janaki.

In the modern era, we often think of state power as the presence of a stable monopoly, borders, bureaucracy, and security forces. But in reality, state power is not confined to such a situation. World history has repeatedly shown that no political power gains stability in popular support until long-standing rulers and their dominance are suddenly overthrown. In my copyrighted theory, “A Theory of Understanding State Power Through Knowledge, Identity, Liberty, and Power, and State-Power” I propose a revolutionary framework for understanding this situation: the “ladder of control.”

I argue that state power is the institutional culmination of a five-step progression. This ladder of knowledge, identity, freedom, and power ultimately leads to state power. By examining this ascent, we can better understand how authority is constructed and why it is resisted.

Step 1: Knowledge as a foundation

The first rung on the ladder of knowledge is knowledge. Knowledge provides the ability to interpret and apply knowledge to shape social outcomes. Historical events have shown that the ultimate gatekeeper of power is the right to control knowledge. Ancient Egyptian scholars used literacy as a means of consolidating power, while today state actors and corporations use “big data” and algorithms to control power.

Knowledge can wield the power of states to monitor and manipulate, like a double-edged sword, through propaganda or censorship. It empowers individuals and institutions. While print media fueled reform in the modern era, the Internet has fueled the rise of Arab and South Asian rebellions and upheavals in the postmodern era. Without the technical, historical, and strategic foundational mastery and maturity of knowledge, any attempt to climb the ladder of statehood is bound to fail.

Step 2: Identity as the catalyst

If knowledge provides the tools, identity provides the motivation. To move beyond individual understanding toward collective action, there must be a shared sense of ‘who we are’. I highlight how ‘imagined communities’—built through national anthems, flags, and shared history—legitimize the state by fostering loyalty.

Yet, identity can also be a source of profound instability. When identity is manipulated to exclude or marginalize, as seen in the ethnic divisions of the Rwandan genocide or modern populist movements, it fragments the very society the state seeks to govern. To successfully ascend this rung, leaders must forge a cohesive identity that unites rather than divides.

Knowledge and identity are two sides of the same coin. Knowledge provides tools, while identity provides inspiration. Identity is collective rather than individual. There must be a shared sense of “who we are.” This highlights how “imagined communities”—constructed through national anthems, flags, and shared histories—enhance the state by fostering loyalty. However, identity can also be a source of deep instability. When identity is manipulated to exclude or marginalize, the brutal events of the Rwandan genocide are even more ancient. This is evident in the ethnic and racial divisions of modern populist movements. The power to govern thus tends to fragment society. For sustainable development and a creative society, leaders must promote and protect a unified identity that unites rather than divides.

Stage 3: Freedom for individual and collective prosperity

The third stage, freedom or liberation, is where knowledge and identity are transformed into productive action. This stage represents the freedom of people to think, speak, and organize freely. In authoritarian regimes, freedom is not for everyone but is limited to a small elite, while in democracies it is widely distributed through voting and citizen participation.

However, the modern era has introduced new tensions in the trade-off between freedom and security. Through surveillance technologies, states curtail civil and business freedoms in the name of security. Without the freedom to organize, even groups with knowledge and identity cannot effectively challenge the status quo.

Stage 4: Power as a mechanism of influence

The final rung and bridge to statehood is power. Power operates through a variety of means. Power operates through coercion (power), economic (resources and resources), cultural (ideology), and political (institutions). However, my theory supports Max Weber’s notion that power must be legitimate in order to endure.

We see a positive transition in great figures like Nelson Mandela. These men of the era transformed the “illegitimate” power exercised by the state into the exercise of “legitimate” power through popular support and moral authority. Such a transformation requires the use of knowledge, identity, and freedom to influence the behavior of others and to gain control over institutions.

Stage 5: State power as the supreme power

State power sits at the top of the ladder, with the institutional authority to govern a territory through legitimate violence, taxation, and a monopoly on law enforcement. Yet I argue that this is not a fixed endpoint. State power is a constantly evolving process that requires maintenance over time.

These five stages represent the basic components of the “ladder of control” and are a framework used to understand how individuals and institutions exercise governance and authority.

The following summary outlines how these elements work to maintain state power:

Knowledge: Serves as the basis for control, using technical expertise and legal frameworks to maintain state legitimacy. It includes the ability to interpret and enforce political outcomes.

Identity: Acts as a catalyst for collective action by uniting populations through shared personal and group narratives and symbols, fostering the sense of loyalty and belonging necessary to maintain state authority.

Freedom: It allows for healthy civic participation and the management of dissent, providing the necessary space for individuals and groups. Freedom acts as a “crucible” that transforms knowledge and identity into tangible action.

Power: It acts as a mechanism of influence through coercive, economic, or political means to enforce authority and defend the territory of the state.

These steps, while not strictly linear, are interdependent, which strengthens the stability of the governing body.

The feedback loop of governance

The premise of this theory is rooted in the recognition of interdependence. The ladder is not a one-way street but a feedback loop. Once achieved, state power must be able to shape the conditions of knowledge, identity, and freedom for the next generation.

The main reason why consensual social welfare states have been stable in Scandinavian countries, including Sweden, is because these elements are balanced there. When these elements are out of balance, as during the French Revolution’s “Reign of Terror,” this controlled ladder collapses when uncontrolled freedom leads to chaos. This imbalance persists into the 21st century, as leaders exploit misinformation (knowledge) to manipulate identities and erode democratic norms (liberties).

Conclusion: A human process

Ultimately, I believe that state power is not a static entity but a human process shaped by agency. Understanding this ladder is all the more important in an era where non-state actors such as corporations and digital networks are challenging traditional boundaries.

To build systems that are powerful, just, and resilient, it is essential that the ladder be accessible to all. The ladder must be built on a foundation of legitimate knowledge and inclusive identity. The struggle for control may never be easy. But it is through this struggle that the soul of a society is defined.