Lorenzo Viviani’s ‘Leadership and Democracy: A Political Sociology of the Personalization of Leadership’ examines how political leadership is transforming in contemporary democracies. He argues that power is increasingly personalized, shaped by the charisma, image and populist styles of individual leaders. These developments, Viviani explains, redefine leadership, legitimacy and democratic institutions. To understand modern leadership, he emphasizes, one must analyze how the relationship between leaders and voters is evolving and what factors shape perceptions of legitimacy and trust (2024).
Nepal’s recent political developments can be interpreted within this framework. The youth-led protests of Sept 8–9 raised profound questions about leadership, legitimacy and governance. A major turning point came earlier that month, when the government imposed a social media ban on Sept 4. The subsequent protests not only forced the government’s resignation but also fundamentally reshaped Nepal’s political discourse. A lack of transparency, declining charisma among political leaders and the rise of populist rhetoric were central to this crisis.
Thousands of young people mobilized against the Oli government, accusing it of authoritarian behavior and widespread corruption. Tragically, security forces killed a number of protesters and injured many others on the first day. The government’s response was marked by indifference; no cabinet minister resigned or expressed remorse.
Instead, officials used harsh language against demonstrators, exposing the regime’s authoritarian tendencies despite its democratic mandate. Public anger intensified, and by the second day, the protests had turned violent. Government and private properties, including the Prime Minister’s Office, the Supreme Court and residences of political figures, were set ablaze. Unable to control the situation, the Oli government resigned, and the prime minister was evacuated under military protection. Prominent figures, including Nepali Congress leader Sher Bahadur Deuba, were assaulted by crowds in an unprecedented display of public outrage.
In the aftermath, an interim government was established under former Chief Justice Sushila Karki, with a mandate to conduct parliamentary elections within six months. From a conflict studies perspective, this transition offers valuable insights into the erosion of democratic legitimacy and the interplay of leadership, governance and populism.
The Oli administration had failed to meet public expectations, relying on nationalist rhetoric as a political survival strategy rather than pursuing genuine reform. His government’s verbal attacks, manipulative politics and outdated economic vision alienated the public. Instead of strengthening institutions, it punished opponents selectively and used the justice system for retribution. Transparency collapsed, and bureaucratic inefficiency appeared to serve as a shield to corruption.
The decline of charisma among Nepal’s political elite further deepened the crisis. Charisma, in this context, refers not to personal appeal but to visionary leadership and moral authority. Long-standing political leaders failed to articulate a compelling national vision. The traditional rhetoric of democracy, development and prosperity no longer inspired the youth. Dominated by aging figures with conventional mindsets, major parties have struggled to deliver tangible progress, leading to public disappointment. When leaders lose moral grounding and credibility, authority inevitably weakens.
Figures such as KP Oli, Sher Bahadur Deuba and Pushpa Kamal Dahal saw their influence erode as perceptions of self-interest and moral decay grew. Their visible wealth and comfort contrasted sharply with public hardship, reinforcing cynicism. The resulting collapse of charisma contributed to governance instability and accelerated democratic erosion.
Neo-populist trends also played a critical role in Nepal’s recent upheaval. Both emerging and established leaders adopted populist strategies to gain influence. Within the Nepali Congress, Gagan Thapa’s campaign for youth leadership directly challenged the establishment authority of senior figures such as Sher Bahadur Deuba. While the movement mobilized younger voters, it often prioritized personal ambition over institutional reform and civic education.
Although frustration with the older generation’s corruption and stagnation is understandable, turning to populist shortcuts risks further democratic erosion. Leaders propelled by populist appeal frequently weaken institutions, restrict civil liberties and centralize power, even when elected through democratic means. Consequently, Thapa and his allies, despite their electoral legitimacy, risk undermining Nepal’s fragile democratic foundations if populism continues to define their political trajectory.
As Viviani observes, political power has become increasingly personalized. Nepal’s youth movement and subsequent political transition exemplify how populist manipulation of public discourse can disrupt democratic stability.
Fueled by technology and vast, often misleading information flows, young protesters demanded instant transformation and prosperity.
However, the absence of civic education and unrealistic expectations led to frustration and destructive outcomes. The violence and instability that followed severely damaged Nepal’s international standing. Foreign investors, already cautious, became even more hesitant. The destruction of historic landmarks, private enterprises and public infrastructure symbolizes not renewal but regression. Ultimately, the crisis has left Nepal more polarized, ego-driven and fragile, posing serious challenges for the nation’s democratic future.
Nepal’s recent political crisis reflects the growing personalization of power that Viviani describes in Leadership and Democracy. The 2025 youth-led protests, sparked by government repression and corruption, exposed the collapse of transparency, moral leadership and public trust. As traditional leaders lost credibility and populist figures rose, Nepal’s democracy weakened further, marked by violence, institutional decay and deep generational frustration with unfulfilled promises.
