While teaching communication to master’s students, I often reflect on its deeper significance—not just in theory but in real-world applications. Communication is fundamental to human existence. It begins at an interpersonal level, extends to spiritual and societal dimensions, and even governs the biological processes that sustain life. As Dr David Sinclair discusses in Lifespan, cells constantly exchange signals to maintain function. When communication breaks down, whether in the body, society or governance, disorder follows.
Communication and its challenges
At its core, communication consists of a messenger (sender), a message, a channel and a receiver. For effective communication, both the sender and the receiver must have a shared understanding of the message. When this fails, miscommunication occurs, leading to inefficiency, misalignment or even conflict.
In class discussions, we often explore why miscommunication happens. Several key factors contribute to it: the intention behind the message, the clarity of the message itself, the reliability of the communication channel and the receiver’s interpretation of the message. External noise (such as misinformation and disinformation), biases in the media and differences in perception further complicate the process.
A critical debate in communication studies is how information should be structured. Should it flow through a centralized system for consistency, or should it be decentralized for flexibility? Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses. Centralized systems provide clarity but can be rigid, while decentralized models encourage adaptability but may lead to fragmentation.
Jürgen Habermas, in his discussion of the system and the lifeworld, examines how institutionalized structures interact with everyday communication. The system refers to institutionalized structures like government or bureaucracy, while the lifeworld encompasses the everyday communication and experiences of individuals. In Nepali politics, this tension is evident in the struggle between formal governance structures and public discourse. Bureaucratic systems and political institutions often dictate the flow of information, shaping narratives that serve political elites rather than fostering genuine civic engagement. This disconnect undermines transparency and weakens public trust, as political messaging shifts from dialogue to control.
Political communication in Nepal
Applying this model to Nepali politics reveals significant challenges. Ideally, political communication should create a shared understanding of national interests. However, it often serves to promote individual or party narratives rather than collective progress.
The challenges begin with the messengers—political leaders—whose messaging is often influenced by party agendas rather than national priorities. Messages should be transparent and reflective of reality, yet they are frequently ambiguous, selectively framed or shaped to fit specific political narratives. The media plays a crucial role in message dissemination, but concerns over bias and political affiliations sometimes hinder the public’s access to objective information. The rapid spread of unverified content on social media further complicates the landscape, making it difficult for citizens to differentiate between fact and political rhetoric.
Nepali political discourse often lacks coherence due to internal party conflicts, shifting alliances and fragmented messaging. For instance, the ongoing debate between those advocating for the reinstatement of the monarchy and Hindu statehood versus those supporting the current federal democratic republic system has created a highly polarized political environment. Additionally, the controversial dismissal of Kulman Ghising has sparked widespread debate. Some view his removal as a politically motivated act influenced by party rivalries, while others believe it reflects the government’s dissatisfaction with his management of the energy sector. Furthermore, the aggressive use of social media by influential figures through posts that stir public sentiment exacerbates these divisions. These conflicting narratives—both online and offline—contribute to uncertainty, divert attention from critical governance issues and fuel political instability. The fragmentation of political messaging weakens governance, delays policy implementation, and erodes public trust.
Feedback is key
One of the critical aspects of Nepali political communication is feedback. Effective communication should be a two-way process, allowing for dialogue and accountability. While elections provide periodic feedback, they occur infrequently, leaving limited opportunities for continuous public engagement. Political discussions are often one-sided, with leaders relying on speeches and rallies rather than meaningful interaction with citizens. Public dissatisfaction, when expressed through protests or debates, is sometimes met with defensive responses rather than constructive dialogue.
To strengthen political communication, there must be a shift toward transparency, inclusivity and responsiveness. Independent media should be reinforced to ensure that communication channels remain neutral and informative rather than instruments of political influence. Mechanisms for public engagement should be expanded, providing citizens with opportunities to voice concerns beyond election cycles. Equally important is public awareness—critical thinking and media literacy can help individuals navigate political messaging more effectively.
Moving forward
Scholars in communication studies often note that “perfect communication is a myth.” This doesn’t imply that communication can’t be improved, but rather that political discourse must acknowledge its inherent complexity, context and evolving perspectives. For Nepal, this underscores the urgent need for institutional reforms that promote transparency, foster open dialogue and establish continuous channels for civic engagement. Strengthening public forums, independent media and participatory governance structures can ensure that political communication serves the broader national interest rather than partisan agendas.
While perfect communication remains unattainable, it is essential to recognize that meaning is shaped by context, perception and interpretation. In Nepali politics, communication has the potential to unite and drive progress. However, when manipulated as a tool for influence rather than genuine understanding, it leads to polarization and stagnation. In line with Habermas’ theory, “transparent and accountable communication” is crucial for bridging the gap between the system and the lifeworld. By improving communication strategies in Nepal, we can align institutional structures more closely with the public's needs and aspirations, promoting a more inclusive and democratic society.
Addressing these challenges requires a shift from rhetoric to meaningful action. Political institutions must adopt communication strategies that are structured, responsive and foster ongoing dialogue. Transparent, accountable communication will build a stronger foundation for governance and national development. Moving forward, fostering responsible discourse should be a shared priority among political leaders, media and the public. Without this shift, misinformation, mistrust and missed opportunities will continue to undermine progress.
