Submit your Article

Nepal’s democratic transition was a historic achievement, born out of years of struggle against autocracy and exclusion. The promise was clear: a more inclusive, transparent and accountable political system that would work for all Nepalis. However, in recent years, that promise appears increasingly under threat—not from overt dictatorship or conflict, but from a more insidious danger: crony capitalism, underpinned by corruption and rent-seeking behavior.

Instead of fulfilling the vision of a just and equitable society, Nepal’s political and economic systems are becoming instruments of private gain. Political power is being used not to deliver public service, but to protect vested interests, distribute favors and reward loyalty. As a result, the foundations of democracy are weakening, and inequality, injustice, and disillusionment are growing.

Graft in daily life

One of the clearest signs of Nepal’s corruption problem is the widespread practice of bribery in daily government work. People often complain that they have to pay extra money to get basic services—like getting a driver’s license, registering land or receiving government help. This kind of small-scale corruption is not just occasional; it has become a regular part of the system. Many lower-level officials take bribes, often with the knowledge or silent approval of their bosses. Because of this, public services no longer work fairly, and people lose trust in the system. Along with this, Nepal is now facing several big corruption scandals, such as irregularities in the construction of Bhairahawa and Pokhara airports, cheating in government purchases, and growing cases of human trafficking. These examples show how deep and serious corruption has become in the country.

Patronage over meritocracy

In a healthy democracy, public appointments and opportunities should be based on merit. In Nepal, however, political patronage has become the norm. Government contracts, licenses and even civil service positions are often awarded to those with political connections, not competence. This has created a dual economy—one that rewards allegiance over ability, and another that marginalizes the capable yet unconnected. Such practices discourage innovation, weaken institutions, and dishearten the youth.

Policy manipulation

Nepal’s business elite, particularly those with political ties, have increasingly influenced laws and regulations to serve their own interests. This includes securing tax exemptions, inflating budgets and establishing monopolies that block competition. Regulatory frameworks are often tailored to fit the needs of a few, undermining the spirit of fairness and market integrity. In effect, public policy is being captured and privatized.

Public procurement sans accountability

Large-scale corruption is particularly rampant in public procurement. Infrastructure, health and education projects are plagued by inflated costs, poor quality, and delayed completion. Contracts are frequently awarded without open bidding, leading to the misuse of public funds. Instead of serving the people, these projects often serve the contractors and politicians who collude behind the scenes. The result is a chronic under-delivery of essential services.

The capture of financial institutions

Even Nepal’s financial institutions are not immune. Several cooperatives and commercial banks are believed to be controlled by political actors or their close allies. These institutions have been used to launder money, issue unsecured loans to cronies and bypass financial oversight. Such practices not only promote corruption but also put ordinary depositors and the overall financial system at risk.

Consequences for the nation

The cumulative effect of corruption and rent-seeking is deeply damaging. Economic growth is stifled because genuine entrepreneurs are crowded out by politically connected firms. Inequality worsens as elites accumulate wealth while basic services for the public remain poor. Most dangerously, public trust in democratic institutions is eroding. When citizens lose faith in the rule of law and the fairness of the system, democracy itself is at risk.

Furthermore, the politicization of oversight institutions—such as the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA), judiciary and police—has rendered many of them ineffective. These bodies are meant to serve as guardians of accountability, but they often appear reluctant or powerless to act against those in power.

The way forward

Addressing these challenges requires more than superficial reforms. It demands structural change and political will. Strengthening anti-corruption laws, ensuring transparency in public procurement and depoliticizing state institutions are essential. Political party financing must be regulated, and the independence of watchdog agencies must be guaranteed. Whistleblowers and investigative journalists must be protected, and a culture of ethical leadership must be cultivated.

Equally important is the need for civic engagement. Citizens must demand accountability, participate actively in governance and resist the normalization of corruption. Democracy does not end at the ballot box—it must be defended and deepened every day.

Conclusion

Nepal’s democracy was built with the hope of justice, equality and opportunity. Allowing that hope to be squandered by corruption and cronyism would be a profound betrayal. Crony capitalism is not just an economic issue—it is also a political and moral one. Unless addressed with urgency and courage, it threatens to undo the democratic gains made over decades. Nepal cannot afford to let democracy become a tool for private profit. It must remain a force for public good.

In recent days, a strong debate has resurfaced in Nepal’s political landscape: monarchy versus democracy. Nepal has a long history of monarchy, particularly under the Shah dynasty, which ruled the country for centuries until the introduction of an interim constitution in 2007. The swift and peaceful transition from monarchy to a democratic republic was remarkable. The last king of Nepal, Gyanendra Shah, stepped down and left the palace without resistance, marking a historic moment in the nation’s political evolution.

Following the abolition of the monarchy, the country embraced a republican democratic system, which was widely welcomed by the public. However, political parties have since struggled to maintain the trust of the people. The transition was marred by inefficiencies, broken promises and poor governance. One key issue has been the adoption of an inflated and disorganized government structure, which has proven both costly and ineffective. The socialist orientation of the constitution has also had unintended consequences for Nepal’s economy and overall development. 

Additionally, while federalism was introduced to decentralize power, the central government has been unwilling to truly empower local governments. This has created overlapping responsibilities and financial burdens at both the federal and local levels. Given the country’s limited economic resources, it has been impossible to meet the high expectations raised during political campaigns. Political parties have often made unrealistic promises, leading to widespread disillusionment. Many Nepalis, in turn, have placed faith in these false assurances, often without access to accurate, fact-based information. The rise of social media has further enabled the spread of misinformation, deepening public confusion and distrust. These issues have played a major role in fueling public support for autocratic monarchists.

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a monarch is a hereditary head of state with life tenure, whose powers range from symbolic to absolute. In the 21st century, the consolidation of inherited power and rule over the people is no longer acceptable. However, some monarchies continue to exist due to geopolitical factors. These monarchies tend to survive when they remain politically neutral, avoid scandals and maintain a limited ceremonial role. Unfortunately, Nepal’s monarchy has consistently failed in all these aspects.

Some monarchists have argued that Nepal should adopt a democratic monarchy and reinstate former King Gyanendra Shah. This is a baseless argument, rejected by most freedom-loving citizens. History shows that monarchs who seek absolute power are eventually forced to relinquish it or see it dramatically reduced. For instance, in 1920, King Christian X of Denmark dismissed his prime minister and government over a policy disagreement, which led to mass protests and a constitutional crisis. He was ultimately forced to back down. King Leopold III of Belgium spent five years in exile due to his refusal to comply with his government’s decisions.

The Shah dynasty in Nepal has never demonstrated a commitment to constitutional democracy. Instead, its kings repeatedly sought absolute power. Nepal's monarchy might have survived had King Gyanendra not staged a coup in 2005 to seize full control. This pattern of authoritarianism dates back further: King Mahendra executed a coup in 1960, dissolving democratic institutions and concentrating all power in his hands. King Birendra also maintained absolute rule through the Panchayat system, using political manipulation to hold onto power. Any credible historian can confirm that the Shah dynasty consistently pursued authoritarian governance.

Moreover, Nepal’s monarchy has been plagued by scandals—from the tragic royal massacre to allegations against Paras Shah involving illegal drug use, extrajudicial killings, sexual violence, extramarital affairs and ties to criminal networks. These controversies further eroded any moral legitimacy the monarchy once had.

The Shah dynasty has failed to govern Nepal effectively since the time of geographic unification under Prithvi Narayan Shah in 1768. After his reign, successive generations of the royal family were embroiled in internal power struggles, often marked by violence and betrayal. It was not uncommon for royal family members to conspire against or even kill one another in pursuit of power and personal gain. This violent legacy is one of many reasons why the Nepali people should not trust the monarchy or the Shah dynasty.

Even after the political reforms of the 1990s, the monarchy continued to act as an absolute authority, refusing to adapt to democratic norms. A large network of individuals benefited from the palace and the monarchical system, creating vested interest groups that further damaged the monarchy’s reputation. As a result, the institution lost the public’s trust,

The recent rise in pro-monarchy sentiments has negatively affected Nepal's progress toward prosperity and democratic development. Many Nepalis are understandably frustrated by ongoing political instability and economic hardship. However, this frustration has led some to overlook the value of democracy and entertain misguided notions of restoring the monarchy. There is no evidence that bringing back the monarchy would resolve even a fraction of Nepal’s current problems.

Certain political parties and crook networks have exploited pro-monarchy rhetoric to destabilize the democratic system and gain political advantage. Figures like Rabindra Mishra, Rajendra Lingden and Kamal Thapa appear to be leveraging this unrest to expand their influence. For them, whether the system is democratic or autocratic is irrelevant—they enjoy social, economic and political privileges either way. Their primary interest lies in gaining power, even if it means fueling division, protest or violence.

What the Nepali people truly desire is a prosperous nation where they can live freely and securely. Access to quality education, healthcare, public safety and a government that genuinely represents the people are the real needs of the moment. Yes, there is deep dissatisfaction with corruption, lack of opportunity, political instability and the unethical behavior of current leaders. But these issues are far more likely to be addressed within a democratic framework than under an autocratic monarchy.

The monarchy in Nepal was historically corrupt, repressive, autocratic and ineffective. Under its rule, people had no voice or freedom to speak out. Restoring such a system would be a step backward, not forward. Ultimately, Nepal’s future lies not in a return to monarchy but in strengthening its democratic institutions, promoting good governance and focusing on inclusive economic development.

Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak has said autocracy cannot be an alternative to democracy at all. Nepali society has been accustomed to democratic values, so sliding back to autocracy is unacceptable, he added.

Minister Lekhak, who is also a Nepali Congress leader, was speaking at an interaction organized by his party's constituency-3 working committee in Rupandehi. Nepal cannot backtrack, he reiterated.

"Nepali people believe in democracy, Nepal is moving forward with democratic system,” he said.

He, however, admitted weaknesses in present delivery. The people's plight cannot be taken advantage of for disrupting the system, Lekhak asserted.

Former King Gyanendra Shah returned to Kathmandu from western Nepal recently amid rousing cheers and chants from thousands of supporters. This mass gathering at the airport and the subsequent rally in which thousands of people participated wasn’t just nostalgia for the bygone monarchy; it was a reflection of public frustration. A deep, simmering frustration of the unemployed youth who see no future in their own country, of parents left alone as their children work under the scorching heat in foreign lands, of spouses living apart, yearning for the family life they once dreamed of. It was a frustration of citizens who wake up every day to yet another news of corruption, scandals, and abuse of power, frustration of hardworking individuals whose opportunities are overtaken by the privileged few politicians, their families, and their inner circles.

For some, this support for monarchy comes from an experience; they lived under it and now compare it to what democracy has offered. For others, it was fueled by the sense of uncertainty; they never experienced monarchy but now wonder what if there was a monarchy in place? What if governance was about service rather than power? What if corruption was actually punished? What if the nation prioritized merit over political connections? What if development wasn’t just an election-time slogan? What if Nepalis didn’t have to celebrate something as basic as a newly paved road in the 21st century?

The frustration isn’t new. It has been brewing for years. The transition to democracy was supposed to bring change, but for many, it has brought only disappointment. Political instability has been a defining feature of Nepal’s governance for decades, with governments collapsing and forming at an alarming rate. Leaders rise to power promising reforms, only to repeat the same cycle of inefficiency and self-interest. Citizens are left watching as political infighting takes priority over national progress.

Nepal’s economy, once hoped to flourish under democratic rule, has struggled to provide for its people. The job market is stagnant, pushing millions of young Nepalis to seek employment abroad. The remittance economy sustains the country, but at a great emotional and social cost. Families are torn apart, children grow up without parents, and entire generations are raised with the mindset that their future lies outside Nepal, not within it.

Education is another area of disillusionment. Young people work hard to earn degrees, only to find that merit does not guarantee opportunities. Instead, it is nepotism, political connections, and bribery that open doors. Many educated individuals either leave for better prospects or settle for underemployment, their talents wasted in a system that does not value them.

The corruption that plagues Nepal is perhaps the most infuriating aspect of all. Scandals involving billions of rupees make headlines regularly, yet those responsible rarely face any real consequences. Politicians and bureaucrats enrich themselves while basic services crumble. Hospitals lack equipment, schools lack resources, and infrastructure projects remain unfinished for years, draining public funds while achieving little progress.

Infrastructure development moves at a snail’s pace. Roads, bridges, and essential facilities are often promised but rarely completed on time or with quality workmanship. When projects do finish, they are celebrated as major achievements—even though they are the bare minimum a functioning government should provide. Meanwhile, in other parts of the world, cities are being built from scratch in mere months, and technological advancements are reshaping economies.

The justice system, too, fails to inspire confidence. Laws exist on paper but are not enforced equally. The wealthy and powerful navigate the system with ease, while ordinary citizens struggle for even the most basic legal protection. Cases drag on for years without resolution, leaving victims with little hope for justice.

It is in this climate of frustration that the question of monarchy resurfaces—not necessarily as a solution, but as an alternative to the current mess. The sight of Former King Gyanendra being welcomed back in Kathmandu was not just about nostalgia; it was a loud and clear message that people are desperate for something different. They are not necessarily advocating for a return to absolute monarchy, but they are asking whether the current system has truly served them well.

As someone who was a child when Nepal was still a monarchy, I cannot claim firsthand knowledge of whether it was better or worse. But I see the frustration around me, and I, too, find myself asking: What if? Not because I believe monarchy is the perfect solution, but because I know that democracy, as it stands, is failing its people. It has become a tool for a handful of elites to consolidate wealth and power while millions struggle to get by.

This isn’t about choosing between democracy and monarchy, it is about demanding a system that works. A system that prioritizes governance, accountability, and opportunity. A system where politicians are held accountable, where corruption is punished, and where leadership is driven by service rather than self-interest.

So where do we go from here? The What ifs are questions that demand answers, not silence. Whether it is democracy or monarchy, the real concern should be about governance, accountability, and the future of Nepal. Because, at the end of the day, Nepalese are not demanding luxury; they are merely asking for dignity, fairness, and a chance to build a better future in their own homeland.

Sixteen years have passed since the abolition of Nepal’s 238-year-old monarchy, yet the political landscape remains unsettled.

The occasional statements from former King Gyanendra Shah and the persistent protests by his supporters continue to rattle the fragile foundations of the federal republic established in 2008. Interestingly, these pro-monarchist demonstrations often serve as a unifying force for Nepal’s major political parties, temporarily bridging their deep-rooted divisions.

As spring arrives, pro-monarchist forces have once again intensified their protests, echoing their perennial demands for the restoration of the Hindu state and the monarchy. While large-scale demonstrations were rare between 2008 and 2018, the momentum has been steadily building since then, though it has yet to reach a tipping point capable of overturning the 2015 constitution.

The growing disillusionment with successive governments, plagued by unfulfilled promises and systemic failures, has fueled anti-establishment sentiment. This dissatisfaction has provided fertile ground for the resurgence of royalist forces, whose recent street protests have sparked fear and anxiety among Nepal’s major political parties. Spring, traditionally a season of political unrest in Nepal, has once again become a stage for demonstrations, with royalist protests capturing significant attention this year. Even within the largest party, the Nepali Congress, there are vocal advocates for reinstating the Hindu state—though not necessarily the monarchy.

The latest wave of protests was triggered by former King Gyanendra Shah’s Democracy Day message on Falgun 7. In his address, he called on all “nationalists,” democrats, and patriots to unite and address the country’s deepening crisis. While he stopped short of explicitly urging people to take to the streets, his message was notably more pointed than his previous vague appeals. Following this, pro-monarchist forces organized sizable protests in Pokhara, Biratnagar, and Madhes provinces, sending alarm bells ringing among mainstream political parties.

The former king’s message, likely crafted after informal consultations with his supporters, has galvanized a series of protests across the country. Two prominent parties—the Rastriya Prajatantra Party led by Rajendra Lingden and the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (Nepal) led by Kamal Thapa—have openly endorsed the king’s agenda. However, dozens of smaller groups and outfits are also actively working toward the same goal. While Gyanendra Shah has not formally aligned himself with any political party, he has provided tactical support, including financial backing, to these groups.

This is not the first time monarchist forces have made their presence felt. Significant demonstrations in 2021 and 2023 drew considerable attention from both domestic political parties and the international community. However, these protests have lacked a unified structure or leadership, with deep divisions among the various groups hindering the emergence of a cohesive movement.

In response to the growing unrest, the CPN (Maoist Center), which prides itself as a defender of the 2015 constitution, has suspended its ongoing party programs. Party leaders cite the need to monitor the royalist forces, whom they accuse of attempting to create chaos. Meanwhile, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, CPN (Maoist Center) Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal, Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba, and other leaders have issued a unified message to the former king: if he wishes to return to power, he should register a political party and contest elections. Some have even threatened to arrest him if he undermines the current political system. Royalist parties have countered by asserting that the king is a unifying figure above partisan politics and therefore cannot be expected to contest elections.

Gyanendra Shah has been actively touring the country to rally support, while also making frequent visits to Uttar Pradesh, India, to meet Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, a long-time supporter of his bid to regain power. The former king appears to be seeking backing from India’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) for his campaign to reinstate the monarchy and the Hindu state. While some within the BJP support the idea of Nepal as a Hindu state, it remains unclear whether they endorse the restoration of the monarchy. Last August, Gyanendra’s visit to Bhutan at the invitation of King Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuk fueled rumors of third-country involvement, adding another layer of intrigue to his efforts.

Adding to the political turbulence, former US President Donald Trump’s remarks labeling USAID funding for Nepal’s fiscal federalism as a “fraud” have bolstered pro-monarchy and right-wing forces in Nepal. These comments have been seized upon by royalist groups to discredit the current federal system and argue for a return to a more centralized, monarchical governance model.

As major political parties face growing unpopularity due to rampant corruption, unemployment, and economic stagnation, royalist forces see an opportunity to advance their agenda. On a recent Sunday, supporters organized a mass demonstration in Kathmandu, coinciding with Gyanendra’s return to the capital after a week-long stay in Pokhara. He was greeted by enthusiastic supporters at the airport and escorted to his residence, Nirmal Niwas, under heightened security.

Criticism of the 2015 constitution is mounting, fueled by the failures of the political parties that have governed since the monarchy’s abolition. Widespread corruption, economic stagnation, and a lack of opportunities have created a pervasive sense of pessimism, which royalist forces are exploiting to push their agenda. Political analysts warn that the current system could be in jeopardy if mainstream parties fail to address these issues effectively.

While even the monarchist forces doubt that street protests alone can restore the monarchy, they believe their movement could pressure mainstream parties into making concessions. However, the lack of a clear representative for the former king complicates any potential negotiations with the current government. Royalist forces remain steadfast in their belief that only the monarchy can resolve the nation’s deepening crisis. As the political drama unfolds, Nepal stands at a crossroads, with its future hanging in the balance.

The principle of the separation of powers is a fundamental principle in the structure of modern democratic governance. It divides governmental powers into three branches: the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. The idea behind this separation is to prevent any single branch from accumulating too much power, ensuring a system of checks and balances that maintains democratic integrity and upholds the rule of law. In theory, each branch operates independently and acts as a counterbalance to the others, safeguarding individual freedoms and preventing authoritarian rule.

In the context of Nepal, the separation of powers has faced significant challenges in the post-republic era, particularly after the abolition of the monarchy in 2008. While the country formally transitioned into a republic, the violation of the principle of separation of powers has led to institutional weaknesses and the erosion of democratic values. This article explores the significance of the separation of powers in a democratic system, examines instances of its violation in Nepal’s post-republic era and highlights the consequences for the nation’s democratic health.

Importance of separation of powers

The separation of powers plays a crucial role in preventing the abuse of power by ensuring that no single entity has control over all aspects of governance. By dividing authority among different branches of government, each one serves as a check on the others, protecting citizens’ rights and preventing any one branch from becoming too dominant.

This system also promotes accountability. When power is shared, the legislature can scrutinize the actions of the executive, and the judiciary ensures that laws are applied fairly and impartially. This encourages transparency and makes those in power answerable to the public.

One of the most important aspects of the separation of powers is its role in safeguarding individual freedoms. The judiciary acts as a guardian of constitutional rights, ensuring that neither the executive nor the legislature can infringe upon fundamental freedoms. This protection helps to maintain a free and just society.

Moreover, the separation of powers contributes to the stability of governance. By distributing power among different branches, it helps counterbalance fluctuations or the concentration of power in any one area. This balance prevents instability and ensures that the government remains fair and resilient, even during times of political change.

Violation unabated

Nepal, after the declaration of the republic in 2008, adopted a democratic framework based on the principle of the separation of powers. However, the country’s post-monarchical era has seen numerous violations of this principle, which have had serious repercussions on the health of Nepalese democracy.

Executive overreach, legislative subjugation

One of the primary violations in Nepal’s recent history involves the dominance of the executive branch over the legislature. Since the reemergence of the parliamentary party system in Nepal in 1990, the House of Representatives has been dissolved six times. The fifth dissolution occurred on 20 Dec 2020, when Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, acting on the recommendation of his cabinet, advised President Bidya Devi Bhandari to dissolve the House. President Bhandari accepted the recommendation the same day and announced that elections would be held in two phases: 30 April and 10 May 2021.

However, on 23 Feb 2021, the Supreme Court ruled that the dissolution of the House of Representatives was unconstitutional and ordered its reinstatement. The court issued a mandamus, directing that the House be convened within 13 days. As a result of the ruling, a session of the House was held on 7 March 2021.

In the sixth instance, on 22 May 2021, Prime Minister Oli again recommended to President Bhandari the dissolution of the House and the scheduling of mid-term elections for 12 Nov and 19 Nov 2021. The President accepted the recommendation, and the House of Representatives was dissolved once again, with the election dates announced accordingly.

Impeachment

In Feb 2021, Nepal’s ruling parties filed an impeachment motion against Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana, making him the second chief justice in the country’s history to face such a motion, following Sushila Karki in 2017. At the time, the Nepali Congress, the CPN (Maoist Center) and CPN (Unified Socialist) supported the motion against Rana, with Sher Bahadur Deuba as prime minister. The motion against Karki, filed in 2017, was led by Congress lawmaker Min Bahadur Bishwakarma, while the current motion against Rana was proposed by key figures from the ruling parties.

Karki’s impeachment led to her suspension and Gopal Parajuli temporarily taking over, with Rana later staying the motion. After Parajuli’s resignation, Rana became chief justice in 2019. Now, almost five years later, Rana faces his own impeachment motion, primarily due to accusations of corruption, misconduct and failure to perform his duties.

Consequences

When one branch of government begins encroaching on the others, it weakens the very foundation of democratic institutions. The independence and effectiveness of these institutions are compromised, leading to a loss of public trust in the democratic process. Over time, this erosion of faith increases the risk of authoritarianism taking root.

In Nepal, the manipulation of the separation of powers has contributed to political instability. Political parties often use state institutions to consolidate their own power, which has led to ongoing factionalism and conflict. This pattern is evident in the frequent changes in government leadership and the breakdown of the political system, leaving the country in a state of uncertainty.

For the people of Nepal, this constant political drama has led to growing disillusionment. The disregard for constitutional principles has made citizens skeptical of the political process, which in turn has resulted in lower voter participation. This disillusionment weakens the democratic process and erodes public support for democratic governance.

The lack of independence in the judiciary has further exacerbated this situation. When the legal system is not allowed to operate free from political influence, citizens lose confidence in it. Corruption, bias and the absence of fair justice create a culture of impunity, where political interests subvert the rule of law and undermine justice for all.

Conclusion

The separation of powers is essential in maintaining a healthy and functioning democracy. It ensures that power is not concentrated in the hands of one branch of government and that each branch can check the excesses of the others. Nepal’s post-republic era has been marked by several violations of this principle, leading to political instability, diminished trust in democratic institutions and public disillusionment with governance.

To restore the integrity of Nepal’s democracy, it is crucial to uphold the separation of powers and strengthen the independence of each branch of the state. Without this, the nation risks further undermining its democratic progress and succumbing to authoritarian tendencies. Only through respect for the separation of powers can Nepal ensure a more accountable, transparent and vibrant democracy for future generations.

Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak has said that journalism is the guardian of democracy.

While congratulating the newly elected officials of the Federation of Nepali Journalists (FNJ) today at the Ministry of Home Affairs at Singha Durbar, Minister Lekhak said that impartial journalism is the pillar of democracy.

"Our Constitution guarantees full press freedom. The government ensures the atmosphere for independent, professional and impartial journalism," he said.

The Home Minister emphasized that journalism should be based on ethics, system and truth.

"I urge you to protect yourself and the media from activities such as disseminating fictitious news, creating unnecessary confusion in the society, character assassination of individuals, society and communities," said Minister Lekhak.

FNJ chair Nirmala Sharma, expressed her gratitude for the role played by the government in facilitating the conduction of the elections of the FNJ in a peaceful environment.

In addition, she submitted a memorandum to the Minister of Home Affairs, demanding action against those involved in the violation of press freedom.

The rise of populism and a crowded political culture threaten Nepal’s democracy. Although this perspective may be controversial, I believe in the need for a transparent and democratic political system that allows Nepalis to thrive in diverse ways. Nepali voters are understandably frustrated with current governance and political instability. However, it is alarming when educated and influential figures fuel political division, spread populist ideas, and engage in conspiracy theories—actions that undermine Nepali democracy. Nepal is still on its path to becoming a fully democratic state, and this journey may take generations. This does not mean Nepal’s democracy has failed; rather, it is evolving. Several factors, however, have weakened Nepal's democratic system, including the rise of populist trends, radical political groups, and the constant shifts in agendas since the 1990s reforms. Traditional political ideas have also struggled to uphold democratic values, causing a rift between voters and political parties.

In recent years, populism has gained momentum in Nepal’s political landscape. Notable figures like Rabindra Mishra, a former journalist, entered politics with strong anti-corruption rhetoric, earning public trust. Yet, his shift from democratic to authoritarian ideologies exposed him as a deceptive leader. TV journalist Rabi Lamichhane entered politics with vague and false promises, using his media influence to gain power without offering clear policies. He quickly became one of the most controversial figures, embroiled in scandals involving passport fraud, citizenship issues and financial misconduct. Lamichhane founded the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), which performed well in the 2081 general election and attracted educated candidates. However, the RSP remains a populist party without a solid ideology, relying on blame tactics and controversial leadership. Lamichhane's involvement in coalition politics appears to be a strategy to shield himself from legal consequences, and his negative populist rhetoric continues to endanger Nepal’s democratic and legal system.

Recently, authorities arrested Lamichhane for his alleged involvement in a credit union fraud scheme, based on evidence collected by a parliamentary investigative committee and the police. Although the investigative process may lack full transparency, his arrest was properly carried out by government authorities and investigative bodies. Unfortunately, many of his political supporters, including some self-proclaimed intellectuals from his party, took to the streets and engaged in violent protests. This behavior presents a serious threat to Nepali democracy and the rule of law.

As a journalist, Lamichhane loudly criticized other political parties for violent or unethical actions. Now that he faces similar accusations, it raises questions about his integrity. It is crucial to remember that other high-profile political leaders are currently in jail, and their party members have not interfered with police investigations or the judicial process. Nepali leaders and the public must recognize that Lamichhane is not above the law and must cooperate with government and legal institutions like anyone else.

Nepal’s democracy has faced challenges from both radical left- and right-wing ideologies. Some leaders cling to outdated beliefs in socialism or communism, despite these systems failing in countries like China, Russia, Israel, India and the UK. Others advocate for a return to monarchy, an idea that has been tried and failed. These are merely opportunistic attempts to gain power. 

Meanwhile, democratic leaders have struggled to meet the Nepali people’s expectations. The bureaucracy remains inefficient, and successive governments have failed to address the country’s social, economic and foreign policy challenges. Since the 1990s, Nepal has dealt with crises like the Maoist insurgency and regional conflicts, yet political leaders have not been able to offer a unified, long-term vision for the country’s progress.

The rise of populism and divisive political culture poses a significant threat to Nepal’s fragile democracy. While frustration over current political instability is understandable, influential figures fueling populist sentiments and spreading conspiracies undermine the democratic process. Figures like Mishra and Lamichhane have introduced dangerous populist trends that distract from the real progress Nepal needs. Lamichhane's recent legal troubles and the violent protests from his supporters demonstrate how populist leaders can destabilize the rule of law. No one, including prominent leaders, should be above the law. Both the public and political figures must prioritize the integrity of democratic institutions over personal ambitions. For Nepal to move forward, leaders must provide transparent governance and long-term visions, while the public must stay vigilant against populist movements that offer no real solutions. True progress lies in a unified commitment to democratic values and accountability.

Views are personal

Democracy in South Asia faces critical challenges that jeopardize its very essence. From India to Pakistan, Nepal to Bangladesh, democratic principles are under siege as political actors employ various strategies—persuasion, monetary influence, punishment, and division—to achieve their goals. This article delves into the precarious state of democracy in the region, where traditional strategies outlined in Chanakya's Arthashastra—Sām (persuasion), Dām (monetary influence), Daṇḍ (punishment), and Bhed (division)—are increasingly prevalent.

Rise of populism and infodemic

Sām, once pivotal in democratic discourse, has been overshadowed by populism and demagoguery. Leaders manipulate rhetoric and propaganda via social media, blurring the line between persuasion and manipulation. The misuse of media platforms during elections amplifies misinformation, exacerbating communal tensions and undermining electoral integrity.

In the bustling streets of South Asian cities, amidst the clamor of election campaigns, a significant concern emerges: The infodemic. As political parties compete for power and influence, the misuse of media and social media platforms has become a potent tool in their arsenal, shaping public opinion and eroding the credibility of the electoral process.

The rise of populism and demagoguery has overshadowed the once-central role of persuasion in democratic discourse. Political leaders exploit rhetoric and propaganda to sway public sentiment, leveraging the pervasive reach of social media. During South Asian elections, the manipulation of media platforms shapes narratives, undermining the integrity of the electoral process. Misinformation proliferates rapidly online through fake accounts and sensationalist content, exacerbated by biased reporting in traditional media outlets. This phenomenon, often termed an "infodemic," fuels societal divisions.  

Dām: Corrupting influence of money

Dām, characterized using monetary power, has deeply infiltrated South Asia's political terrain, fostering an environment where corruption and cronyism thrive. Wealthy elites and influential interest groups wield disproportionate sway over policymaking and governance, exacerbating inequality and marginalizing disadvantaged communities. This commodification of democracy, where votes are traded like commodities, undermines the foundational principles of equality and fairness that democracy strives to uphold.

The pervasive influence of Dām, or monetary power, in South Asian politics fuels corruption and cronyism, allowing wealthy elites and interest groups to manipulate governance, exacerbating inequality, and disenfranchising marginalized communities. 

Daṇḍ: Punishment for adversaries

Despite attempts to utilize punishment to quell dissent, journalists, activists, and political dissidents continue to face harassment, violence, and imprisonment, eroding both freedom of expression and the rule of law. Nevertheless, grassroots movements and civil society organizations persist in their steadfast resistance, championing transparency and accountability. They represent a beacon of hope for a future where democracy prevails over authoritarianism.

It is evident that those in power spare no effort to punish their adversaries, who fall out of favor. This trend is increasingly prevalent in countries like India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, as well as in Nepal, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives. Such unwarranted harassment of opponents undermines the foundational principles of democracy, where freedom of speech and the ability to criticize are fundamental to a democratic society.

Bhed: Exploiting divisions

Politicians exploit societal faultlines—religious, ethnic, linguistic—to consolidate power. Identity politics fuels social tension and communal violence, weakening societal cohesion and democratic foundations.

In the intricate tapestry of South Asian politics, the insidious strategy of Bhed (division) wreaks havoc on societal harmony. Exploiting faultlines along religious, ethnic, and linguistic boundaries, politicians employ identity politics to consolidate power and rally support. By capitalizing on existing prejudices and grievances, they deepen social tensions and ignite communal violence.

The ramifications of employing divisive strategies like Bhed are severe. Once united communities now find themselves divided, plagued by distrust where harmony once prevailed. Political figures exacerbate these divisions, eroding social cohesion and undermining the foundation of democracy.

The effects of Bhed extend beyond politics, fracturing families with sectarian conflicts, leaving neighborhoods scarred by ethnic tensions, and societies shattered by communal violence. Nevertheless, for those in authority, the tactic continues to yield results: Divide and rule. Recently, the fragmentation of political opponents' parties has become a common practice in India and Nepal. However, amidst these challenges, there is hope for a more inclusive future. Grassroots movements and civil society organizations tirelessly strive to bridge divides and promote understanding. By countering the narrative of division and advocating for unity in diversity, they offer a beacon of hope in a fractured world.

Conclusion

In South Asia’s intricate political landscape, the misuse of Sām, Dām, Daṇḍ and Bhed poses significant challenges. Upholding democratic values requires bolstering institutions, promoting transparency, and nurturing civic engagement. Civil society, media and vigilant citizens must unite to defend democracy against divisive tactics.

In conclusion, while South Asia confronts formidable democratic challenges, collective action can pave the way for a robust and inclusive democracy. By rejecting divisive strategies and upholding democratic principles, the region can forge a resilient path forward.

[email protected]

President Ram Chandra Pauel said that freedom of press and freedom of expression are the foundation of democracy.

Issuing a message today on the occasion of World Press Freedom Day, he recalled the contributions of the Nepali press sector in the country's major movements for democracy.

Saying that Press freedom is equally important for implementing citizens' constitutional right to get information, President Paudel said adding that the free press helps ensure transparency in the governance system and hold it accountable.

"This is a vital aspect of the entire society's democratization process," the President's message reads.

President Paudel said that the more the press is neutral, free and robust the more the democratic system will be strengthened, and it was all our responsibility to create an environment conducive to this. Due to this very role of the Nepali press, our constitution has ensured complete press freedom and freedom of expression, President Paudel viewed.

The President has described that free engagement in all steps from information collection to its dissemination is press freedom in a true sense adding that pluralism-based journalism ensures citizens' access to every sort of news. 

In his message, the President has suggested that the media fraternity should work hard to establish the truth by disseminating facts through independent journalism and has cautioned that rumors could misguide the citizens and could create challenges in making the right perception.

Likewise, the President has pointed out that fake news that could be disseminated through social networking sites could misguide the citizens and weaken the system, and has wished that World Press Freedom Day would inspire Nepal's media fraternity to disseminate true, factual and credible news.

Following the recent general elections, minor political parties entered the arena with the aim of securing a role in governance, capitalizing on the current electoral framework where no single party can secure a parliamentary majority. Despite initial anticipation of an ideological shift when the Maoist party engaged in the peace process and formed an alliance with the CPN-UML, the coalition fell short of such expectations. Nepali politics is viewed by analysts as being at a critical juncture due to governmental instability, rampant corruption and policy dilemmas. While Nepali people hoped for a lean and efficient administration under democracy, political entities in Nepal failed to deliver on this promise. Instead, the existing governmental structure appeared more bureaucratic and financially burdensome to Nepali taxpayers. Nepal witnessed one of its weakest coalition governments in recent memory, with governing partnerships shifting thrice within a year, reminiscent of past ruthless practices and corrupt leadership.

Even purportedly new political entities became entangled, directly or indirectly, in this murky landscape. Nepali people must understand that a new political party does not inherently equate to moral or ethical integrity. Without ethical leadership, genuine renewal cannot occur. The proliferation of new political parties poses a challenge to Nepal’s democracy and the establishment of a stable governance framework. Hence, analysts must scrutinize emerging trends, including the involvement of Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) in Nepal’s current government.

Analysts assert that RSP emerged from popular sentiments and crowd-driven notions rather than a coherent political ideology. When a political entity originates from populism, it may lack a clear political agenda, principles and policies. Parties’ lack of principles can undermine democracy, as voters may struggle to access accurate information to make informed choices. Furthermore, in the absence of political principles, a party risks becoming the personal domain of its leader, sidelining the interests and agendas of others. Populist ideas have the potential to conceal decision-making processes and mislead the public. Without a solid political ideology, populist agendas may clash with the nation's established plans and policies, resulting in misguided policy decisions. Populist leaders often adhere strictly to their scripted agendas, sidelining other parties from meaningful discussions.

Under CPN (Maoist Center) Chair Pushpa Kamal Dahal-led ruling alliance, RSP has emerged as a significant political force, bearing substantial responsibility and accountability to the Nepali people. However, numerous uncertainties linger regarding the RSP and its leadership. Establishing a political party necessitates several key components: a clear political ideology, organizational structure, committed party members and integrity. Regrettably, RSP lacks all four elements. A robust political ideology serves as the cornerstone of a democratic political party, providing the framework for policy formulation. The absence of such an ideology and principles has downgraded RSP to a populist entity born from popular sentiment rather than sound political doctrine. In a democracy, people reserve the right to inspect their political leaders, and governments and political parties must remain answerable to the people. However, RSP has been quick to silence dissent and avoid pertinent inquiries, raising concerns about its commitment to transparency and accountability.

RSP lacks a robust political infrastructure, functioning more as a non-profit organization where social activists deflect blame onto others without assuming responsibility themselves. Examination of their core leadership reveals a predominance of individuals from elite backgrounds or higher economic layers, primarily residing in urban centers. RSP primarily focuses its activities on urban politics, capitalizing on the ability to amass crowds. The party’s president, Rabi Lamichhane, signals from a media background, using his platform to criticize the government and spread misinformation rather than addressing genuine issues. Lamichhane has adopted a quasi-superhero persona, presenting himself as capable of resolving all challenges through seemingly magical means. Despite his involvement in numerous controversies and disputes within Nepali media and politics, no conclusive resolution has been reached under legal frameworks. Major political parties have exploited Lamichhane for their gains, not bothering to address controversies surrounding him.

Nepal’s major political parties have diligently instructed their members on political ideology and beliefs, yet RSP has faltered in establishing a coherent political ideology and grassroots organization. Instead, RSP relies on amassing followers from the masses without implementing any effective control mechanism. It’s common knowledge that unguided crowds can turn toward chaos and pose a threat to democracy by disregarding laws and regulations. Therefore, RSP must evolve into a responsible democratic political entity, addressing unanswered questions and being accountable to the public. The rise of populism and crowd-driven politics worldwide over the past decade, exemplified by movements like the Mega Republicans in America and radical Hindu nationalists in India, poses a significant risk to democratic institutions and norms. Any embrace of nationalist radicalism could jeopardize Nepal’s overall development and its democratic foundation.

Integrity stands as a crucial pillar for the advancement of democracy. Unfortunately, all political parties in Nepal have fallen short of maintaining integrity to some extent, leading to results of large-scale corruption and conflicts of interest. Despite positioning itself as a viable political alternative, RSP cannot afford to emulate the shortcomings of established parties. Instead, it must exemplify honesty, moral integrity and ethical standards. Regrettably, RSP’s president, Lamichhane, has repeatedly failed to demonstrate honesty and ethical conduct, particularly in relation to an illegal passport case and a cooperative fraud. Moreover, his selection of ministries directly linked to these controversies highlights a clear conflict of interest, further underscoring his lack of integrity. Various incidents involving RSP leaders in controversial situations have been concealed by the party, weakening trust among the people and worsening damage to Nepal’s democratic fabric. When those claiming to offer an alternative view regard themselves as above scrutiny and disregard pertinent questions, public trust is undermined, leading to further harm to Nepal’s democracy.

The prevailing challenges to democracy around the world encompass populism, crowd-centric politics and leaders who undermine established institutions while advocating against traditional governance. Populist figures prioritize personal interests and political gains, deflecting blame onto others for every issue. In the Nepali context, most populist leaders prioritize attaining power rather than fostering long-term economic agendas and developmental strategies. The surge of crowd-centric politics stems from the failures of conventional political parties, which have either failed to address or neglected the people’s priorities. Regardless of the underlying reasons, populism presents a significant danger to democracy and governance, underscoring the importance of responsible political entities and leadership dedicated to nurturing liberal democratic values and fostering trust within society. Crowd-centric organizations can’t serve as a sustainable solution for Nepal’s long-term development. Instead, there is an urgent need to establish a streamlined government alongside an effective electoral system.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author's sole responsibility and do not reflect the views of any organization with which the author is professionally affiliated

Nepali leaders frequently express concern about the perils to Nepali democracy from unidentified sources, yet none have explicitly articulated the basis for their apprehension. The political maneuvers diverge from reality, and Nepali people are sick and tired of the leaders from all the political parties, who are still imposing conspiracy theories regarding democracy in Nepal. These leaders persist in imposing outdated notions of political stunts, despite a transformative shift marked by the overthrow of Narayanhiti Palace and the establishment of a new democratic order. The question remains: Why do these self-proclaimed democratic leaders persistently ‘invoke’ threats to our democracy and the rule of law?

These leaders have failed to steer the country with democratic norms and values. Despite Nepal officially discarding the monarchical and autocratic political system and enacting a new constitution in 2015, political leaders have not rekindled their commitment to democratic principles, remaining out of sync with them. Huq and Ginsburg argue that democracy devoid of democrats poses a distinct ethical dilemma, where unelected actors must decide between honoring the preferences of current voters or enabling future voters to make a meaningful democratic choice (2020). Nepal is a stark illustration, with rejected political leaders continuing to influence decision-making processes and governing bodies. The recent appointment of Krishna Prasad Situala to the upper house reflects a non-democratic trend and disregard for the people's mandate. The government appears more focused on retaining power than fortifying democratic institutions and principles, leading to power imbalances among coalition partners and neglect of the voters' mandate.

Nepali voters still grapple with illiteracy, facing challenges in comprehending democratic values and institutional development. Rather than safeguarding democracy, political parties and their leaders exploit this situation as an opportunity to seize power. These self-centric leaders neglect investing resources and efforts in voter education, opting instead to manipulate power through intimidation and vote buying. Presence of corrupt and unethical leaders poses a significant threat to the progress of democratic institutions and the empowerment of the people. Additionally, leaders across the political spectrum resort to deploying various political tactics to attract voters, often falling short of transparency and honesty. For instance, Nepal’s social welfare program, aiming to provide financial support to the elderly, has drawn criticism from experts. This initiative was implemented without sufficient public discourse and research on its potential outcomes and sustainability.

The prevalence of financial and policy-level corruption in Nepal is alarmingly high. Political parties and their supporters engage in substantial financial expenditures during elections, emerging as a primary catalyst for political corruption. Parties and their leaders frequently misappropriate development budgets intended for societal progress to fund costly election campaigns and appease their constituents. Moreover, a disturbing trend in corruption cases implicates high-ranking political figures. Examples include Nepali Congress leader and former minister Bal Krishna Khad, CPN-UML leader Top Bahadur Rayamajhi, Maoist leader Krishna Bahadur Mahara, and former finance minister Janardhan Sharma, all directly implicated in various corruption-related incidents. This poses a significant threat to Nepali democracy, the rule of law, and the moral fabric of society.

In his book “The End of History and the Last Man,” Francis Fukuyama posits that liberal democracy, characterized by a focus on human rights, regular and free elections, and adherence to the rule of law, represents the ultimate stage in the evolution of human history. According to Fukuyama, the path to success for underdeveloped countries involves embracing freer markets and globalization. However, Nepal lacks the foundational tenets of democracy, such as freedom, human rights, and the rule of law.

The 2022 index from Freedom House reveals that Nepal is classified as partly free, scoring 57 out of 100 on the global freedom index. 

Nepal performs poorly in preventing corruption, government transparency, ensuring due process in civil and criminal matters, implementing equal treatment policies, safeguarding individual rights to equal opportunity, and preserving freedom. The government has fallen short of upholding democratic norms and principles for its people. In the light of these shortcomings, the question arises: Why do leaders persistently claim that democracy is under threat, even when they are in power?

The straightforward explanation lies in their apprehension of facing repercussions from the public due to their inability to govern with integrity and uphold the rule of law. Their anxiety is also fueled by the deceptive pledges they have made. Although Nepal theoretically operates as a democratic republic, its leaders often resort to autocratic practices, posing a more significant threat to democracy and the rule of law than external factors. Shifting blame toward foreign entities and passive political interest groups won’t contribute to political stability. It is the responsibility of political parties to fortify democratic institutions and principles, fostering peace and prosperity in Nepal. The primary threat to democracy originates from within the political parties, and their ineffective governance should not be attributed to unidentified elements.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s sole responsibility and do not reflect the views of any organization with which the author is professionally affiliated

While the year 2024 is going to be a grand electoral year in the history of modern liberal democracy, the risks that democracy could witness grave tremors are getting higher.

The tech and AI mastery of the high tech superpowers—China and the US—is not only contributing to tech bipolarity, economic rivalry, and geopolitical tensions, but also in democratic antagonism. They are exploiting technology and digital capabilities to contain or dictate each other and are involved in ‘techno-geopolitics’, while the big tech and social media are engaged in ‘disinformation’ and ‘data colonialism’. 

Democracy is in danger not only because of authoritarian rulers, or ethnic (muscular) nationalism, or the risk of disinformation, or influence of AI, but also due to general voters. The voters’ rational behavior/decision could play a significant role in preserving the essence and affluence of liberal democracy as every elector is responsible in making democracy sparkling and functional.

Rule of law is a basic tenet of democracy. If a nation has a robust rule of law, it will essentially have a strong and durable democracy. But what is the rule of law and how can it be meaningful? The first element of rule of law deals with the process of lawmaking—which ought to be transparent and participatory. According to the Constitution of Nepal 2015, all three tiers of the state—the federal, province and the local level—are entitled to make their own laws within their constitutionally and legally-defined limits. 

Presently, there are 334 members in the two Houses of the Federal Parliament; 550 members in assemblies of seven provinces; and over 20,000 elected representatives in legislative bodies of 753 local levels in the country. All of them are called lawmakers. 

With the promulgation of a new constitution in 2015 that transformed the country from unitary Hindu monarchy into a federal secular republic, there is a huge need to frame hundreds of laws to replace the old system. Despite the completion of two rounds of general, provincial and local elections, the task of lawmaking is yet to complete. Numerous essential laws on federal governance, police system in provinces, civil service system in provinces, education, health have not been formulated yet. 

From federal to province to local level, each tier has faced unique challenges in lawmaking. Take for instance the recently concluded session of the federal parliament—the MPs themselves have lamented that only one single law was passed during the entire session spanning months. 

In practice, Nepal also faces a unique problem of lawmaking being dominated by a handful of senior leaders of major parties. The MPs or even committees always look up to them to pass any law. They also block any legislation that is against their vested interests. Prime Minister, the leader of the opposition and president of the Nepali Congress rarely take part in committee discussions or House meetings. They do not even attend the House for more than 10 days in the entire session. 

Provincial assemblies have always complained that they lack facilitating federal laws that can allow them to frame their provincial laws in areas like provincial civil service, which are of urgent necessity. Local levels have been found to engage in lawmaking that is either outright copying of model laws distributed by the federal government—without incorporation of local context and circumstances—or haphazard drafting without concerns for due process and content. Many laws originating in provincial assemblies and local level have also been challenged for violating the limits and jurisdictions as laid down by the Schedules of the Constitution. 

That apart, the prevalent practice is to enact laws without peoples’ participation. Government bodies draft a law to their liking and push it through the parliament with minimal involvement of stakeholders. As such, they are not structured in a way that people can comprehend them. They usually fail to reflect the peoples’ aspirations and expectations. 

The second element of the robust rule of law is concerned with the state of implementation of laws. People must know about the laws of the land and abide by them, but there is no systematic procedure to sensitize the people about the laws and provisions introduced. This is the first barrier to the implementation of the laws. 

In fact, even the lawmakers do not know what they have enacted into laws, though they expect everyone to abide by the laws. Clearly, the laws do not get implemented automatically. Processes, programs, resources, management and a favorable environment are required for their implementation. 

Capacities, willingness, monitoring and enforcement are all necessary to make that happen. Most importantly, there has to be a realization of how much ownership is felt by the stakeholders, including those who are supposed to abide by them. 

Some of the critical issues in any rule of law system are to find out whether the people feel benefits of abiding by laws, or whether they feel the burden of abiding by the laws and consider it as imposition of exploitative measures. 

The third and final element of the robust rule of law deals with the institutions that are responsible for upholding laws, and ensuring a system of checks and balances. This involves the geographic distributions of the legal institutions that will have to, first and foremost, ensure the access to law and justice for the ordinary people. 

The people must have easy, economical and intimidation-free access to the institutions of law, including the administration and courts. They must be able to get justice on a predictable timeline. They must also be able to feel that justice is being delivered equally—irrespective of caste, gender, region, economic status or political clout. 

Rule of law institutions must be strong enough to serve their purpose. Matters like trustworthiness in terms of their competence, impartiality, independence, accountability and legitimacy are of utmost importance. This will also determine whether their 

decisions are easily accepted and implemented.  

This will demand a change in all three elements mentioned above. In lawmaking, there is a need to expeditiously formulate essential laws, particularly in areas listed under the concurrent list of the constitutional schedule such as policing, civil service, education and health. 

The Rule of Procedure of the parliament should explicitly state that all MPs must attend at least 50 percent of the House meetings or face disciplinary action. The bills tabled in the parliament must be settled—passed or rejected—within a certain timeline within the session. 

There is a need to ensure participation in lawmaking for public ownership before implementing laws. Town hall meetings or mobile meetings of parliamentary committees at province and local levels can be held with help from civil society organizations to pre-inform the people about the laws. The authorities also need to be accountable to ensure proper implementation of laws. 

In the institutional development aspect, there is a need to first ensure timely and full appointment of judges and court officials. They need to be held accountable to ensure economical, easy, timely and equal access to law and justice for the people. 

The judiciary also must settle cases on stipulated time and if any case is made to linger, there has to be accountability on the part of the courts. For example, a case against appointments in constitutional bodies has been lingering for three years without any justification. 

On the part of the people, they need to be empowered so that they can also rise and demand a robust rule of law in all spheres of their lives. Combined efforts of the executive, the legislature, the judiciary and the people will ensure a robust rule of law that is transparent and participatory.

The author is Executive Director of Nepal Law Society

Nepal has a short history of democratic practice that started about seven decades ago, only to be punctuated by authoritarianism. What’s more, a report from the Economic Intelligence Unit (EIU) points at the existence of a “hybrid form of democracy” in Nepal. This hybrid strain, which foreign agencies have made mention of, is perhaps a pointer toward coups that have taken place and the absence of ‘genuine’ democracy even during what can largely be described as the ‘democratic era’. 

A rational democracy contains multiple features, which are lacking in our democracy. 

For example, democracy in a developed country is not bound by the clan and cluster of the citizen. In such a polity, the citizens have a full-fledged authority over the resources with government agencies acting as accelerating forces that keep a close watch on democratic forces and practices. Every eager citizen assumes that democratic practice carries a long-term value. Economic powerhouses are also an independent parallel influence to institutionalize democracy. Demography, democracy and demonstration are also crucial for a proper democratic practice.

Democratic pathways

Multi-polar practice of development entails a tranquil mechanism as it presumes the system as a long-run phenomenon that sprints systematic carryover of the entire nation. Rational development in a real democracy carries the lingered value that leads to overall systematic reformation, which is lacking in least developed countries. Systematic uplifting of democratic practice leads the nation ultimately to smooth pathways for formal and accurate systematic changes that we are likely to ask for.

Continuous political volatility, impunity, messy policies, unregulated economic activities, intra-party polarization and regional strain are the key factors that are likely to have an inverse impact on the sound development of democracy. Sound democracy needs a playful practice of social justice and social equity. Parallel practice of adjustment over the government and development of morality among the general civilians seems to be a petty smart notion for democratic reformation.

Ready for a shift?

In this era of rampant social modification and development, everyone may not have equally profound faith in terms of democratic institutionalization. On the contrary, he/she tries to clutch the aspirations of the masses for overall social progress. But they go pear-shaped to remember their backgrounds and the system under which they are performing. This is a general trauma. So, gradual eradication of illiteracy among the citizenry is also a goal that we are trying to achieve.

By 2026, Nepal is likely to ‘graduate’ to a developing nation from a ‘poor nation’ and the government is making preparations for this progressive shift. Many of the socio-cultural aspects, literal aspects, economic indicators and other normative values are still in rapid progress to achieve this. But the core living standards, health access of distant populace and political transition have not made much headway. Amid this scenario, a question arises: Are we really ready for this shift?

Liberating space

Institutionalization of a democratic system that delivers is the minimum requirement of the Nepali people. This way, we can enhance the general economic system and democratic perspective dynamically. 

Disordered democratic systems lacking crystal-clear roadmaps can invite a high-degreed curse rather than boon for the state. In least developed countries (LDCs) like Nepal, where democracy is not yet institutionalized, a culture of impunity is likely to take root. Switching up for the sound, adamant and progressive democracy is a vital prerequisite for us. The holistic theme of democracy is crucial not only to accelerate societal progress but also to boost up economic reformation, which is a prior need and demand of every state.

Digital democracy

Now-a-days, we are positioning our nose for classical adherence to liberalization, but can't keep our fingers ahead for the digital taxonomy of democracy moving and seeking a rampant platform for further limelight. It quests ahead for digital technology, maximization of digital tools, social media platform, online advocacy forums and more. In this digital era, many individuals can develop advocacy forums and can mushroom in no time. This is also a prerequisite for developing a digital democracy, which may later take the form of e-democracy where anyone can poll and manifest their opinion via individual democratic platforms.

Concurrently, new arrivals in the political system of Nepal are in the line to develop a quiet, liberal and democratic play station to ponder into the system of the country, and are also successful catching the aspiration of civilians.