By Narayan Prasad Mishra
The revolution of 1951 ended the Rana regime. After the 1959 constitution was promulgated and general elections were held in the country, a genuine multiparty democracy formally began and was implemented in Nepal. Following the general election, the Nepali Congress Party won far more seats in the House of Representatives than were required to form a government. As a result, a government was formed under the leadership—i.e., the prime ministership—of its leader Bishweshwar Prasad Koirala.
However, accusations soon arose that, in the name of democracy, only party rule was operating in the interests of political parties themselves. Corruption had increased to an excessive level, and people were suffering. On the grounds that this system had become harmful to the country, in 1960, King Mahendra dissolved the system within a short period and established and operated the partyless Panchayat system.
Yet leaders who believed that only a multiparty system could be called democracy, along with their supporters, continued their struggle against that system. As a result, multiparty democracy was restored again in 1990. Since 1990, the Nepali people have lived under the umbrella of multiparty democracy and have experienced it firsthand. Therefore, it now seems that the Nepali people can easily imagine and evaluate whether King Mahendra’s observations made within such a short period were true or false.
During this period, the multiparty system provided ample comfort, positions, prestige, wealth, and property to political parties, their leaders, and their close supporters, relatives, and associates. However, a perception gradually developed in the country that this system had not achieved the expected, even the minimal, level of national development, nor had it improved the economic condition of the people.
Since the monarchy itself was considered the root cause of these problems by the main parties, another belief emerged in the country—that if the monarchy were abolished and replaced by a republic—a multi-party democracy without a king—national development and public welfare would progress rapidly. As a result, largely through the strength of the Maoist movement and its demands and slogans, the country became a republic on May 28, 2008. However, even after Nepal became a republic, the problems of the people have continued to increase. Disorder, corruption, irregularities, nepotism, and favoritism have grown. Instead of development, the country appears to be heading toward decline, and the poor have been pushed into even deeper poverty. In other words, misgovernance has prevailed.
Because of this situation, a large number of young people known as Gen Z suddenly launched an unprecedented protest movement on September 9 and 10, 2025 (Bhadra 23 and 24, 2082), demanding the elimination of corruption and the establishment of good governance. This movement was directed against political parties, their leaders, and the party-dominated system itself—those who, while in power, have enjoyed authority, positions, comforts, privileges, wealth, and property—while the ordinary people outside the party system have remained distressed. The fact that the homes of some party leaders were even set on fire clearly demonstrates the depth of public anger.
Today, many people understand that democracy is a system of governance that ensures peace, prosperity, and welfare for all citizens by equally protecting the rights, opportunities, and benefits of all citizens in the country. On the other hand, a system in which only political parties, their leaders, activists, and their close associates enjoy privileges, rights, and benefits—while the rest of the citizens are reduced to second-class status and deprived of their rights—can be called party rule or leader-dominated rule.
In this sense, it is as clear as a mirror that since 1990, the country has not been practicing genuine democracy but rather a system dominated by political parties and leaders. The recent Gen Z movement has strongly challenged those political parties that deny this reality and has clearly exposed their claims as false.
Now, after the general election conducted by the government formed through the strength of the Gen Z movement, a new House of Representatives is being established in the country. At one time, political parties were widely criticized for working only for themselves and their close supporters. With the noble belief that governance should serve the country and the common good of all, an independent candidate who did not join any political party and was elected mayor—Balen Shah—is now expected to lead the new government.
Perhaps inspired by the success and influence of Balen Shah, Rabi Lamichhane established the Rastriya Swatantra Party, attracted by the very word “independent,” and now serves as its President and principal leader. Due not merely to his own mistakes or irregularities but also to the entrenched party-dominated political system’s jealousy and hostility, he has faced numerous legal cases and endured considerable hardship by repeatedly appearing before courts. So, he is fully aware of the dangers posed by the party oligarchy and is expected to eliminate it for the country and its people.
In this context, there is hope that the incoming government will not only prevent democracy from being crushed by party domination and leader supremacy, but will also take the necessary constitutional and legal steps to ensure that such harmful, anti-people systems never emerge again and that genuine democracy alone will prevail.
At the same time, there is hope that the Rastriya Swatantra Party will not become like the old political parties that the people have already rejected from power. It should not, out of arrogance and intoxication with authority, impose party dictatorship and distribute positions and privileges only among its own supporters—as happened during the government of Girija Prasad Koirala and others, thereby depriving independent citizens like us of the opportunity to serve the nation.
For democracy to flourish and bear fruit in the country, an effective system of power balance and control is essential. For this purpose, in a country like ours, it would be beneficial if the head of state and the head of government were not both affiliated with the same political party. If the head of state were impartial, non-partisan, and independent, the risk of collusion leading to party domination would be reduced. This arrangement would also help maintain good governance and strengthen the monitoring and control of corruption.
Therefore, the incoming government should consider either retaining a king as the head of state or, if the monarchy is not accepted, creating constitutional provisions that allow only non-partisan candidates representing the nation as a whole to contest for the position of head of state.
Furthermore, in accordance with the demands of the Gen Z movement and the hopes and expectations of the people, immediate constitutional, legal, and administrative arrangements must be made to ensure that not even the shadow of politics influences professional institutions such as the National Planning Commission, the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority, the Public Service Commission, the civil service, the police, the army, educational and academic institutions, universities, the Judicial Council, and the courts.
If these reforms are not carried out promptly with sincere intention and courage, there is little doubt that democracy in the country will once again perish, and a monstrous party-dominated system will emerge in its place.
Login to add a comment