Rajesh Kafle ,Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of Nepal
Nepal is not facing a crisis of democracy in form; it is facing a crisis of democracy in substance. What exists today is not the absence of democratic institutions, but the erosion of democratic accountability behind their façade.
The Nepali people have paid a heavy price—through movements, sacrifices, and political upheavals—to establish a constitutional democratic system. Yet, years after the promulgation of the Constitution, democracy remains largely symbolic for ordinary citizens. The problem is no longer the constitutional text, but the political culture that governs its implementation.
Constitutionally, sovereignty rests with the people. In reality, citizens queue for hours to access basic public services, justice remains slow and selective, and rights are often mediated by influence rather than law. Meanwhile, elected representatives—meant to be servants of the people—operate within insulated corridors of power, largely shielded from public accountability. This inversion of roles strikes at the very heart of democratic legitimacy.
Political parties that claim historical ownership of Nepal’s democratic journey—particularly the Nepali Congress—have gradually transformed democratic ideals into instruments of power acquisition. Principles such as transparency, rule of law, and ethical governance are celebrated in rhetoric but routinely compromised in practice. Corruption, factionalism, and political bargaining have ceased to be anomalies; they are becoming systemic features of governance.
Elections, while necessary, are not sufficient to sustain democracy. Democracy survives not merely through ballots, but through accountable governance, independent institutions, and equal application of the law. When law functions as a shield for the powerful and a burden for ordinary citizens, democracy exists only on paper.
Nepal’s current political reality reflects a broader global concern: democratic backsliding disguised as democratic continuity. The rituals remain intact—parliaments convene, elections are held—but the ethical core of democracy is hollowed out. Governance becomes performance, and power becomes self-preserving.
What Nepal urgently requires is a shift from slogan-based politics to accountability-based governance. Citizens must move beyond periodic voting to sustained civic vigilance. Leaders must be evaluated not by historical legacy or populist narratives, but by integrity, outcomes, and respect for constitutional limits.
A political system that fails to recognize the value of citizens’ labor, suffering, and dignity forfeits its moral authority to call itself democratic.
Democracy cannot survive as theatre.
It must function as responsibility.
Comment