By Narayan Prasad Mishra
Nepal’s modern political history is often told as a steady march toward democracy. The Rana oligarchy fell in 1951. Parliamentary elections were held in 1959. Multi-party democracy was restored in 1990 after decades of monarchy-backed rule. The monarchy itself was abolished in 2008 in favor of a republic. On paper, the country appeared to move consistently toward greater freedom and popular sovereignty.
Yet many ordinary Nepalis today ask an uncomfortable question: If democracy has truly triumphed, why is the country’s condition declining? Why does the public feel so helpless and powerless?
The answer may lie in the widening gap between democratic ideals and political reality. Nepal’s system has increasingly evolved not into a democracy that serves citizens equally, but into a party-centered order dominated by political elites, patronage networks, and factional interests.
Since the beginning of the Partyless Panchayat System, pro-multiparty democracy activists have fought to restore multiparty democracy, believing that political freedom alone would deliver justice, development, and accountability. When democracy returned in 1990, public expectations were immense.
But over time, those expectations began to erode.
Political parties became deeply entrenched in nearly every state institution. Successive governments distributed power, appointments, and influence largely through party loyalty rather than merit. Corruption scandals multiplied. Governments rose and fell rapidly. Meanwhile, millions of ordinary Nepalis continued to struggle with unemployment, inflation, and the absence of basic opportunities.
The abolition of the monarchy in 2008 was presented as the final step toward a more inclusive and prosperous Nepal. Yet for many citizens, daily life did not improve. Instead, public distrust of political leadership deepened. The promise of republican democracy increasingly appeared disconnected from the realities of governance.
This disillusionment reached a new level with the eruption of youth-led protests in September 2025. Large numbers of Gen Z Nepalis took to the streets demanding accountability, good governance, and an end to systemic corruption. Their anger was directed not merely at one party or one leader, but at an entire political culture that they viewed as self-serving and insulated from public suffering.
The symbolism of the protests mattered. Young people who had grown up entirely within Nepal’s democratic republic were openly questioning whether the system genuinely represented them. Their frustration reflected a growing belief that elections alone do not guarantee democracy if political power remains concentrated within a small network of party elites.
We now have a powerful government under the premiership of Balen Shah of the Rastriya Swatantra Party with almost a two-thirds majority in the House of Representatives. Whether these newer actors ultimately succeed or fail remains uncertain. But their popularity demonstrates the depth of public fatigue with the old order. Nepal’s challenge now is larger than replacing one party with another. The deeper issue is whether democratic institutions can be redesigned to serve citizens rather than political machines.
For democracy to function meaningfully, state institutions must remain independent from partisan capture. Bodies responsible for civil service appointments, anti-corruption oversight, policing, the judiciary, universities, and national planning cannot operate effectively if political interests control them. When every institution becomes an extension of party competition, public trust inevitably collapses.
A healthy democracy also requires strong checks and balances to prevent the concentration of power. In countries with fragile institutions, it may be worth considering constitutional arrangements that encourage greater neutrality at the highest levels of the state. Some Nepalis argue that a ceremonial monarchy once provided such balance. Others reject any return to monarchy but still support the idea of a nonpartisan head of state who can act independently of party structures. What matters most is not nostalgia but the creation of institutions that reduce collusion, strengthen accountability, and protect the public interest.
Nepal stands at a pivotal moment. The country’s young generation has made clear that it no longer accepts corruption and patronage as inevitable features of political life. That demand should not be dismissed as temporary anger. It reflects a profound democratic instinct: the belief that government should belong to the nation, not merely to parties. If Nepal’s leaders fail to recognize this warning, the consequences could be severe. Public faith in democracy itself may continue to erode, creating space for instability, extremism, or new forms of authoritarianism.
Democracy survives not because elections are held, but because citizens believe the system treats them fairly. When politics becomes a closed club serving only insiders, democracy gradually loses its legitimacy. Nepal’s future will depend on whether it can rebuild that legitimacy before public trust disappears altogether.
narayanshanti70@gmail.com
About the author: A non-partisan writer of several books and numerous articles in Nepali and English; former Chief of the Office of the Tribhuvan University Service Commission, Nepal; and a senior citizen in his mid-eighties.
Login to add a comment