Submit your Article

The Asia-Pacific region has been grappling with a troubling trend of democratic backsliding. However, strengthening political participation among youths in the region can serve as a bulwark against the erosion of democratic norms.

This message was echoed by youth leaders who joined the Asia Center-led regional dialogue “Youth Voices, Strong Choices: Political Participation in the Asia-Pacific,” co-convened with the Global Democracy Coalition and Club de Madrid on 26 November 2024.

Apart from youth leaders, the event also brought together representatives from IGOs, INGOs and CSOs based in Thailand. With a total of 41 representatives, the event offered an opportunity for all present to share their views, present their activities and engage with youth beneficiaries.

Voicing their concerns, youth from Nepal, India, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Malaysia expressed their frustration at being excluded from political participation. They felt that if this concern can be addressed, youth can effectively contribute toward halting the democratic backsliding in Asia.

Among the challenges, they pointed out, was the lack of effort to remove barriers that hinder their participation within political parties. This includes the absence of youth engagement from rural communities and economically-disadvantaged groups who remain visibly disengaged from urban political party activities. The noticeable lack of representation from the working-class and marginalized communities has exposed the structural economic and political lack-of-resources barriers hindering youth participation within political parties in the Asia-Pacific region.

Even when youths hold decision-making roles, such as in parliament, young parliamentarians often face challenges in gaining influence within their parties and are kept from leadership roles. As a result, their potential to drive significant reforms or shape policies is frequently stifled, limiting their ability to advocate for the issues that matter most to youth and marginalised communities.

They also often lack the necessary resources and institutional support to build their capacity and sustain meaningful engagement in political settings. This lack of support manifests in various ways, including limited access to mentorship, insufficient opportunities for professional development and a scarcity of funding or logistical resources to carry out their initiatives.

Without these, young people often find it difficult to navigate the complexities of political systems, build strategic alliances or effectively champion their causes. The absence of such support further reinforces the barriers to youth involvement in politics, leaving young parliamentarians isolated and vulnerable to political marginalization.

To overcome these challenges, the youth gathered presented some ideas on how to build a culture of political engagement among the young people in the region.

First, promoting education and awareness programs that emphasise the importance of youth participation in democratic processes, human rights issues affecting them and their communities, and the value of civic responsibility is essential. Initiatives such as the Experiential Citizenship Education Programs for Schools, and Life Skills Development by CMCA (Children’s Movement for Civic Awareness) in India provide an opportunity for young adolescents and youths to engage in democratic processes at the grassroots level.

Second, establishing quality leadership and mentorship development programs helps equip young people with the skills and confidence necessary to engage in democratic processes and constructive advocacy within their societies. Toward this end, initiatives like the Women and Youth in Democracy Initiative (WYDE) Network of Young Decision-makers in Malaysia offer a platform for young leaders to build their capacity.

Third, creating or strengthening youth participation platforms such as youth councils, youth parliaments, and youth advisory boards, is crucial to ensure young people have a voice in democratic governance and decision-making. The Children’s Assembly in South Korea, for example, serves as a strong model of youth parliament, allowing youths to participate in the legislative process by proposing and debating solutions to real-world issues.

Finally, these initiatives must be complemented by policies that address the specific needs and challenges faced by youth, particularly those from marginalized communities, with legal and financial support to ensure meaningful opportunities for empowerment. Save the Children’s Adolescent and Youth Empowerment in Sri Lanka is an example of support for technical leadership aimed at ethical child participation, which feeds into governance and national-level practices.

In addition to these initiatives, it is also essential to rethink how youth can apply digital activism to build grassroots awareness about key challenges and direct electoral participation, providing a platform where youths can voice their concerns, share experiences and collaborate on solutions. This shift is particularly important in addressing the persistent barriers that continue to hinder youth participation in democratic processes, which remain dominated by an older generation that holds key decision-making positions.

By addressing the barriers that hinder youth participation in democratic processes, the gathering affirmed the need for constructive communication and active youth participation, along with providing youth with resources to sustain their momentum on a long-term basis.

The role of student movements and civil society collaborations in fostering collective action has proven successful in some instances, such as in Hong Kong, Myanmar, Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines. Empowering youth is therefore not just a necessity; it is a crucial step toward building a more inclusive and resilient democracy to prevent further democratic backsliding. To this end, it is important to continue building a culture of democratic and civic participation among young people in the region.

The judiciary in Nepal has been under increased criticism in recent years due to claims of political meddling, corruption and incompetence. Historically seen as the last bulwark of justice and the last judge of constitutional norms, the court has revealed weaknesses in its defenses. These cracks expose a deeply ingrained misconception: that Nepal’s court is completely impartial and impervious to corruption. In actuality, Nepal’s judiciary’s independence is still a complicated illusion that is influenced by both internal and foreign factors. It should serve as a check on authority, a defender of the law, and an upholder of justice, as is the case in many democracies. But in Nepal, a number of issues make it less successful, which makes people wonder if it really reflects these principles or if it is just a façade. The independence of a court is essential for upholding the rule of law. 

However, political interests frequently exert pressure on Nepal's court, undermining its independence. Appointments and decisions can be influenced by political parties and their leaders, raising questions about potential bias. A conflict of interest arises when judges are chosen based more on their political connections than their qualifications, raising questions about their capacity to make unbiased decisions.

Political appointments

Political meddling in the selection of judges is the main grievance directed at Nepal’s judicial system. Although political forces frequently exert excessive influence, the constitution has procedures intended to guarantee neutrality in appointments. There is a contradiction of independence inside dependency since the Judicial Council, which is in charge of nominating judges, has members who are also chosen by political players. This system, which is supposed to maintain a balance of power, unintentionally makes it possible for political objectives to influence the court. The politicization of Nepal’s court is another mistake. 

Decisions that are influenced by politics undermine the justice and impartiality that the legal system is supposed to provide. Politicians frequently have excessive control over judicial nominations, guaranteeing that their supporters hold important posts. As a result, judges may feel pressured to support the interests of those who made their appointment possible, which undermines their capacity to act impartially and independently.

Myth vs reality

One of the main myths that is still spread is that corruption does not exist in Nepal’s courts. Although the court is generally regarded with respect by the people, persistent allegations of bribery and corrupt activities cast doubt on its impartiality. Subtle and pernicious corruption spreads through a number of avenues, from lower courts to higher judicial seats. The rule of law is allegedly undermined and public faith is eroded when judges are accused of favoring parties with financial incentives or influence.

Justice fatigue

The widespread backlog of cases in Nepal’s courts is another serious problem. Despite the basic right to a fair and prompt trial, many litigants must wait a long time for justice. Overwhelming caseloads, little resources and a shortage of staff are problems for courts. Some call this ‘justice fatigue’—a situation when litigants completely lose trust in the legal system—is brought on by the procedural delays. The idea that justice postponed is still justice is erroneous; in actuality, it is justice denied.

Obstacles to reform

Political opposition and bureaucratic delay have made Nepal’s judiciary reform a difficult process. Because of entrenched vested interests and a lack of political will, several attempts at structural transformation have failed. Constitutional clauses intended to protect judicial independence have been construed selectively, frequently in a way that benefits the powerful. Enacting significant change is difficult since it involves not just changing the legislation but also the culture in which the judiciary functions.

Restoring trust

Systemic reforms are necessary to rebuild public trust in Nepal's judiciary. Important initial measures include tackling corruption openly, ensuring that judge appointments are made on the basis of qualifications rather than political ties, and implementing technology to expedite case handling. More accountability, which may be attained by open audits and supervision, may also lessen the likelihood of corruption and rebuild confidence.

In summary, Nepal’s judiciary is at a turning point as it struggles with the myths of independence and incorruptibility. Both institutional change and a change in public opinion are necessary to achieve an independent and equitable legal system. Only until these ingrained misconceptions are confronted and dispelled by an unshakable dedication to justice and openness will Nepal’s judiciary be able to live up to these values. Significant obstacles confront Nepal’s court, undermining its function in the democratic process. Public trust is undermined by problems with accountability, independence and openness as well as political meddling. The judiciary must distance itself from political influence and make a commitment to impartiality and openness in order to operate efficiently. Nepal’s judiciary cannot genuinely become a pillar of justice until these changes are implemented.

The death of India’s former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh nudges us to revisit his legacy in policymaking. As India’s technocrat Finance Minister in the PV Narasimha Rao government from 1991-1996, Singh is credited for liberalizing India’s economy at a time when it was nearing an economic crisis, caused by political actors governing the economy, and dismal foreign exchange reserves enough only to support imports for a few weeks. India was then suffering from low output and inefficient markets. 

However, Singh’s aggressive liberalization policies raised domestic productivity, making way for decades of economic expansion. Today, Nepal is also dealing with major institutional inefficiencies, and although not to the same magnitude, an underperforming economy. India’s liberalization story helps understand what holds Nepal back from realizing its economic potential, and as Singh said in his historic 1991 budget speech, from awakening, prevailing and overcoming.

India’s growth, despite being fueled by its geographic advantages, was held back by excessive regulations and centralized economic policies. Before 1991, trade in India remained strictly controlled by political actors that governed the economy. The License Raj, a protectionist system initially designed to nurture young industries, slowed economic activities through its stringent licensing requirements. While elite-backed businesses were able to obtain licenses easily, smaller industries at the core of the economy found it impossible to do so. Low domestic production and widespread inefficiencies largely suppressed economic activities. 

In 1991, India experienced a paradigm shift when the economic reforms brought by Singh reduced licensing requirements, eased trade, deregulated institutions. This increased productivity reformed the economy and political institutions, strengthened core industries and attracted FDI rapidly.

It is worth noting that while India opened up, Nepal also attempted to follow suit. In fact, Praveen Dixit, a member of the USAID’s economic liberalization project in Nepal, recounts in one of his works that Nepal had liberalized its currency before the Indian currency was fully liberalized. Due to unrestricted access to international trade, Nepal was on its way to align with the global economic order. By the end of the 90’s, public enterprises, banks and financial enterprises were privatized; tax reforms were introduced; industry registration was streamlined; and stock trading began. Judicial reforms enhanced the rule of law. 

Today, as India is set to become the world’s third largest economy, Nepal lags behind. This raises an important question—although India and Nepal underwent significant liberalization at the same time, why has Nepal’s liberalization story diverged so significantly?

Nepal’s political instability caused by frequent changes in governments has disrupted long-term planning and policy continuity. Between 1990 and 2024, there have been 32 government changes, a transition from monarchy to a federal democratic republic and institutional frameworks have been overridden by inefficiencies. As Dixit notes, the surge of FDI that followed liberalization in the 1990s came to a halt after the 1994 midterm polls. This disruption highlights how political instability has a direct and negative impact on Nepal’s economic progress. A simple extrapolation gives us an idea of how much economic potential has been wasted in the last 34 years. 

Nepal’s hydropower sector exemplifies these inefficiencies. While hydropower has the potential to transform Nepal into a key energy exporter, institutional inefficiencies prevent this. For example, the Arun III hydropower project, first conceived by the government in 1992, reached financial closure 28 years after its inception in 1992. Another case, a recent tripartite electricity export agreement between Nepal, India and Bangladesh allowed Nepal to earn around Rs 3.8m by exporting electricity for just a little less than 12 hours to Bangladesh on Nov 15. Nepal is projected to make around Rs. 1.2bn annually by selling electricity to Bangladesh for five months each year. Although a net exporter of electricity, the NEA’s margin from exports is only Rs 120m, 0.12 percent of Nepal’s electricity exports. Had this agreement been signed a decade ago, Nepal today would have earned enough to construct a power plant of the size of the Sunkoshi III hydropower project. Combined, these examples highlight the ineffectiveness of institutions working to transform Nepal into a regional hub for electricity trade in South Asia. Clearly, Nepal’s institutional frameworks prevent it from realizing its comparative geographic advantage.

Singh’s legacy highlights the transformative potential institutions have. As the economic center of gravity shifts eastward, Nepal can reap benefits from regional growth. Nepal’s geographic endowments offer immense opportunities for growth, but they alone cannot guarantee prosperity. Without healthy institutions, its comparative advantages will remain underutilized. Therefore, Nepal’s leaders must embrace bold reforms to address inefficiencies within institutions, as Singh did, and unlock the economy’s full potential. Without institutional reforms, Nepal may risk missing the window to achieve sustainable economic development.

The 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence, running each year from Nov 25 (International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women) to Dec 10 (Human Rights Day) have ended. While this global campaign underlined the pressing need to eliminate violence and discrimination against women and girls, it reminded us that the road to a world free of violence requires commitment and action beyond just these 16 days.

This year’s campaign has again brought to the fore the urgency that surrounds gender-based violence (GBV). The conversations it sparked and awareness it raised should inspire action beyond these 16 days. The theme for 2024, Toward Beijing+30: UNiTE to End Violence Against Women and Girls, calls on governments, the private sector and individuals to act on priorities spelt out in the Beijing Platform for Action that reflects three decades of progress and remaining challenges to eliminate GBV.

Globally, the statistics are alarming: one in three women experiences physical or sexual violence in their lifetime. In Nepal, the reality is no different with the Nepal Demographic Health Survey, 2022, revealing that 23 percent of women aged 15-49 years have experienced physical violence, seven percent have faced sexual violence and 13 percent have suffered emotional violence.
Even homes are not safe as the survey shows 25 percent of ever-married women experiencing spousal abuses. This is a stark reminder that GBV is not only an individual issue but a deep-rooted social problem that requires urgent and continued action.

For many women in Nepal, a 16-day campaign is far from enough. Awareness campaigns, though much needed, hardly reach rural areas or the most marginalized groups of society, where women face multiple discriminations based on factors such as disability, caste, and ethnicity. The layers of exclusion increase their vulnerability to violence and limit their access to opportunities and resources.

This complex reality of multiple layers of discrimination exists at every level, from local communities to organizational and institutional settings, denying women the opportunity to lead and reach their full potential.

As we reflect on the 16 Days of Activism, we cannot avoid the fundamental issues underlying all sectors, including livelihood, education, human rights, water and sanitation, and health. An important question that remains urgent is the systematic denial of women’s potential and leadership. This denial is evident not only in communities but also extends to organizational and institutional settings where gender bias and stereotypes often prevail.

These barriers prevent women from participating in decision-making roles and limit their ability to lead effectively. Underutilizing women’s leadership is a disservice to society as a whole and denies the proven capacity of women to bring about transformational change. 

However, in recent times, there have been signs of hope. Women are increasingly rising to positions of leadership, advocating for change and challenging harmful societal norms. This shift, though gradual, signals that change is possible when communities and institutions commit to fostering inclusive and equitable environments.

Campaigns like the 16 Days of Activism raise awareness about important issues, but these efforts must be integrated into broader strategies that enable women and girls to be aware of their rights, resist violence and report it. Continuous advocacy, policy changes and strengthened institutional responses are needed for sustainable progress. This includes engaging local leaders and organizations to the forefront in their communities, furnishing them with resources and support so that they can effectively make change happen.

According to the 2022 health survey, 58 percent of women who suffer physical and sexual violence do not seek support or speak out. This underlines the need for the implementation of programs that allow women to have a safe space where they can express themselves and seek help. It is about empowering women to report violence and ensuring support to break the cycles of abuse and build trust in the systems designed to protect them.

Education and economic empowerment are pivotal in curbing GBV. Educated and economically independent women are better equipped to challenge harmful gender norms and speak up for themselves and others. Yet, despite gains, significant barriers persist. For women who also face discrimination because of their caste and ethnicity, disability, or socioeconomic status, these barriers are significant, making them more vulnerable. The intensity of their exclusion multiplies the risks they face, further calling for targeted interventions recognizing and addressing their unique experiences and challenges.

The call for action is not an individual issue. It demands community-wide engagement, where men and boys are included as essential allies in breaking the violent cycle. Teaching healthy and respectful relationships and gender equality from an early age can establish the foundation for long-lasting change. Programs that encourage gender responsiveness and respect toward women should be integrated into education systems and community-based initiatives. These, along with more stringent and inclusive legal frameworks, can support a culture that gives primacy to safety, equality and dignity for all. This could be done through grassroots movements, government policy or international cooperation; the aim is to bring us closer to a world where women are valued, empowered and safe.

The stories of the women leaders and survivors who share their stories and advocate for change provides much-needed hope. They remind us that with determination and continued support, a future without violence is possible. But to get there, we must commit to the hard work that will be required to dismantle structures that breed violence and discrimination. The 16 Days of Activism must ignite a sense of urgency and purpose, not just for 16 days, but for every day beyond. Only through sustained action can we realize the vision of a world in which women, girls, children and every member of the society can live free from fear and have every opportunity to achieve their full potential.