By means of ever more effective methods of mind-manipulation, the democracies will change their nature; the quaint old forms—elections, parliaments, Supreme Courts and all the rest—will remain. The underlying substance will be a new kind of non-violent totalitarianism.
– Aldous Huxley (Brave New World Revisited, 1958)
Democracy in modern times is an illusion. It is a doublespeak for elites who ask for our votes while legitimising their control. We are living in a system that calls us free while we are imprisoned by emotions shaped by algorithms, propaganda, and continuous surveillance.
Athenian Democracy
Most historians agree that democracy originated from Athens. The people in Athens, a Greek city-state, developed democracy to conduct public affairs. The concept was simple. The citizens gathered in the Agora for Assembly (Ekklesia) to vote on laws, declare war or peace, decide foreign policy, and oversee public spending. Participation was a civic duty, not a choice.
There were no elections in Athens, though. They believed that elections could be rigged by the wealthy, the eloquent, or the well-connected. Because elections could give rise to oligarchy, they used lottery to select their representatives. Although fateful, they thought the random choice was more democratic as everyone had equal opportunity. They had also invented the kleroterion, an allotment machine to prevent rigging of the lottery.
One of the biggest problems of the Athenian Democracy was that it included citizens only, which included men born in the city. Women, slaves, merchants, and foreigners were excluded from voting. Even the original democracy was not fully democratic.
Plato’s Democracy
In the Republic, Plato discusses five kinds of regimes:
- Aristocracy: Rule by the wise philosopher king who is benevolent and not tyrannical,
- Timocracy: Rule by honour-driven soldiers. Ancient Sparta is an example.
- Oligarchy: Rule by the wealthy landowners who put money above all increasing the gap between the rich and the poor. A capitalist state gives rise to oligarchy.
- Democracy: Rule by the many after revolution against the oligarchs. Democracy can descend into mob rule and then into tyranny.
- Tyranny: Rule of the “protector” of the people who crushes his enemies and develops a system to protect himself. By the time people recognize the tyrant, they are already under his control.
Plato believed that not everyone was able to lead and had to eventually give in to the desire of the public. Pacifying the people the sole objective of a democratic ruler and this would eventually lead to anarchy and tyranny.
Representative Democracy and the American Discussion
The Athenian Democracy ensured everyone’s direct participation. However, applying it to a state with large population or geographic barriers is extremely difficult. There is also a possibility of mob rule, as Plato feared, where wrong decisions and actions can also be approved by the crowd. Democracy was not a favoured form of regime.
In most of the places, representatives of an estate, clan or group ruled over the people. These were often unelected. Even when elected, like in the Roman Republic, they used to come from elite families. The Magistratus, the Senate, and the Comitia heavily favoured the oligarchs. Similar arrangements were made in the parliaments of the mediaeval period.
The concept of elected representatives became more popular after the promulgation of the Constitution of the U.S.A. and the success of the French Revolution. They were inspired by the ideas of John Locke, Charles Montesquieu, and the debates of the American Founding Fathers regarding democracy and republic.
John Locke argued for representative institutions that safeguard people’s rights in Two Treatises of Government (1689). Similarly, in The Spirit of the Laws (1748), Montesquieu detailed the idea of separation of powers. James Madison, one of the Founding Fathers of the U.S.A., strongly preferred republic over democracy:
Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention… and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.
— Federalist No. 10 (1787)
Thomas Jefferson favoured broader democratic participation, argued for more trust in the “common man”, and pushed for expanding suffrage, but did not support direct democracy.
The idea of representative democracy was not uncontested, however. Rousseau, for instance, argued that true sovereignty rests with the people directly and that representation is a form of slavery:
“The moment a people gives itself representatives, it is no longer free.”
— The Social Contract (1762)
Nepal’s Practice of Democracy
Nepal became a democratic state in 1951. There have also been protests in 1990 and 2006 to restore democracy. However, many indigenous peoples in Nepal have been practicing democracy since antiquity, for instance:
The Guthi System (Newar Communities)
The guthi is not only a land trust but also a self-governing social institution where decisions are taken collectively by lineage members. The leader is called thakali (not to be confused with the ethnic people, Thakali from Thak Khola area of Mustang, whose system is described in the next section).
Some of its features are:
- Leadership rotation
- Collective labour
- Social accountability mechanisms
- Participation by household, not just by individual “citizens”
- Decisions often made through consensus, not simple majority rule
- Certain guthi (especially diguthi) allow women significant authority
Guthis also call for collective action. Changes about to be brought by the Guthi bill were opposed in 2019.
The Thakali System
Thakali governance traditionally involves:
- The Thakali Council (Thakali Tewa)
- Female inheritance in some clans
- Matriarchal features in household authority
- A trading-network-based social order where economic cooperation required inclusive decision-making
- Ritual and community functions coordinated by collective assemblies
The Panchayat System
King Mahendra introduced the Panchayat System in 1962. He believed partisan democracy did not suit Nepal and introduced a democratic system that valued local governance. A Panchayat at the local level included five representatives who looked after the basic needs and small judicial proceedings among the people. Although it was replaced by multi-party democracy in 1990, the system still influences the villages in Nepal and also shapes the modern local governance at the ward level.
Multi-Party Democracy with Constitutional Monarchy
In 1990, Nepal adopted a new constitution, and with it restored multi-party democracy with the constitutional monarch as the protector. Some communist groups who were unsatisfied, started an armed revolution against the government. Parties, especially Nepali Congress and CPN-UML, busy with their internal politics and unserious about the issue, let the movement grow. They also wanted to use excessive force using the Royal Nepal Army, whose deployment required the King’s permission.
After the Royal Massacre of King Birendra’s family in the Narayanhiti Palace premises, the Maoists declared monarchy was dead. King Gyanendra could not gain support from the people and he had to give up his throne paving way for democratic republican system.
Multi-Party Democratic Republic
Nepal adopted the republican system on the first meeting of the First Constituent Assembly in 2008. The Second Constituent Assembly gave Nepal its current constitution which adopts competitive multi-party democratic republic. However, competition is limited by fragile coalitions, shifting loyalties, and undemocratic practices within the parties.
Democracy in Modern Times
Oligarchic Elections and Tyrannical Tendencies
In modern times, “democracy” and “republic” are often used interchangeably. Whether it is the parliamentary democracy of India, the presidential republic of the USA or the democratic republic of Nepal, people’s participation is ensured through periodic elections. Constitutions, laws, and institutions prevent the tyranny of the majority. Institutions have become more inclusive as voting and candidacy rights prevent discrimination on any grounds.
The problem, however, is that democracies have become mechanical. Elections are announced, political parties or individuals participate, people vote, and the representatives make laws or execute them according to the set principles. The actual voice of people is often lost, as they have little say in the nomination of political parties and candidates and the laws and policies the representatives endorse. This is because modern democracy is actually an oligarchy with popular legitimacy.
In an oligarchy, authority is in the hands of a select few, often distinguished by wealth, family ties, military power, or intellectual influence. Robert Michels’ “iron law of oligarchy” argues that even democratic organisations tend to concentrate power in a few hands due to organisational necessities.
The political parties and their leaders are often like oligarchs. They tend to concentrate power to themselves, depriving the general people from even the basic rights. The collective knowledge on denial of rights, political oppression, and ideological slavery is driving protests all over the world. Bangladesh’s July 2024 Uprising, Nepal’s September 2025 Protests, and uprisings in Indonesia, Philippines, and Madagascar.
There is also the danger of elected tyrants. Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Vladimir Putin suppressed opposition and undermined democracy even though they themselves contested elections. These leaders are villains to people who follow democratic ideals. But there is also a curious case of Lee Kwan Yew, the beloved Founding Father of Singapore. He and his PAP did bring up many reforms that upscaled industries in Singapore and improved people’s lives, but he also brutally suppressed the communists.
Mind Manipulation
The villainization of some and heroization of others is the result of interest-based mind manipulation or propaganda through the use of media. Although both Putin and Yew suppressed their rivals, Putin is a villain to the West because he does not accept the Western agenda and aggressively counters them. Yew, on the other hand, is a hero because he acted to safeguard the Western interests. The US intervention in other countries is an act of peace, whereas the Russian invasion of Ukraine is imperialism. Change the news sources to Russia or Putin-supporting Russians, Putin is the hero, and the Western leaders are the villains. Truth in global politics is mediated by geopolitical interests, not universal moral standards.
Proliferation of social media has become a fuel for propaganda as explained by P.W. Singer and Emeron T. Brooking in their book, LikeWar. Politics is now a game of algorithm. If you “like”, “follow” or “subscribe” to a certain belief, you get bombarded with content that support it. Opposing political ideas become intolerable. You are fed sponsored political campaigns involving provocative statements from leaders and electoral candidates, endorsements from “influencers” who chase clout, and identity-based mobilization that hate on “others”. With unfiltered opinionated people catering to algorithm-filtered content on social media, populism is on the rise.
Populism and Celebrity Leadership
Representative Democracy inherently is a game of convincing people to elect candidates to an office. The game of throne is that of lies, and the one who can lie the most effectively is the winner. Successful is the one who either belongs to a political party with strong grassroots movements, promises to change the status quo through effective campaigning, or has made a name in the community in the past. No candidate can win elections in vacuum.
Political parties with strong grassroots movements are often the best in practicing democracy. Candidates from such parties are also the favourites. However, there is no denying that political parties and candidates are often used by the rich and the powerful to further the policies they want. The candidates also promise to provide basic infrastructures like roads and drinking water even if may be against the existing laws and policies or undermine sustainability.
Candidates working among the people for some time have a good understanding of the problems. If they already are members of political parties, they have the best chance. If they don’t belong to political parties, they may sweep the election as underdogs. However, they also must cater to people’s desire to solve the existing problems even if the solutions are illogical or problematic.
Effective campaigning, however, trumps everything else. You may belong to a political party or have good relations with the people, if you have no campaigning, you can’t win. Candidates use the rally of supporters, go to each household, meet each voter, and ask for a vote. All these have been eased by social media. And who has the best chance of succeeding in social media? Celebrities!
Ronald Reagan was an actor before he stepped into politics and became the President of the US. Donald Trump too came from entertainment industry. Nepal has also seen TV presenters and singers such as Rabi Lamichhane, Komal Oli, and Balen Shah have turned into leaders. Except Komal Oli, the existing fans of these celebrities have helped push forward their narratives, even when they are apolitical.
When leaders always cater to the emotions of the people, they eliminate opponents and gradually overreach to perpetuate their rule.
Continuation of Institutions
Democratic tyrannical leaders, unlike those like Ibrahim Traoré, need democratic institutions to legitimize their rule. Political scientists Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way describe modern states that maintain elections and courts but undermine real accountability as competitive authoritarian regimes. This is because power is most stable when people believe it is legitimate, and legitimacy is most easily maintained when people feel they are in control and believe they choose their leaders. A system seeking to control citizens without violence must therefore keep the appearance of democracy. They also need the facade for international legitimacy.
The continuation of institutions also comforts the general public. Most people stability and predictability over revolution and chaos. Keeping them provides emotional reassurance, even while policymakers, media, or interest groups subtly control outcomes behind the scenes. Moreover, the “democracy” needs to manufacture consent for self-legitimacy. The reign continues even though there the outcomes are predetermined by algorithmic control, agenda-setting, media manipulation, and financial influence. In fact, the participation itself generates consent.
War Politics
The Democratic Peace Theory (DPT) argues that democracies don’t go to war. The reality is different. Except communist dictatorships like North Korea and absolute monarchists like Saudi Arabia, almost every country claims to be democratic, hold elections, and support peace. Everyone is at war, though. From direct confrontations to proxy wars, the world is reeling with futile wars that only strengthen the elites.
Conclusion
The original Athenian Democracy included the voice of people, but it excluded women, slaves, and merchant. Compared to that, Nepal’s indigenous institutions are more democratic. Modern Democracy is different. It is representative and inclusive, but it is a rhetoric for mass control with manufactured consent. It is a system that depends on lies, propaganda, and emotional manipulation to legitimize itself. As Huxley says, the political institutions and structures remain “democratic. However, they are weak and corrupt and invoke fear and terror instead of respect and peace. Modern Democracy is an illusion that promotes hate over love, and divided identities over unity of humanity.
What’s the solution then? The solution, I think, is to give up the notion that each individual has power over the matters of the country. I don’t. Neither does the elected representative. Everyone in the society should be conscious enough to know that leadership is a heavy burden. From such a society emerge leaders who can balance practicalities with philosophy that best serves humanity. We need a grassroots movement that reinforces morality, truthfulness, and conscience. It will turn hatred into love and replace divisions with unity.
A more practical approach would be to improve civic education, strengthen institutions, and safeguard transparency mechanisms. Political parties should be made more democratic through internal debates and periodic elections of the leaders.
For Nepal, the path forward is not simply imitation of Western models but the creation of a contextual, home-grown, critical democracy that:
- connects technological opportunity (digital participation) with local realities;
- draws on Nepal’s traditional community governance like the guthi system, inclusive practices among multiple ethnicities and castes;
- recognises that participation must include real agency, not just elections; and
- safeguards against elite capture, algorithmic manipulation and institutional stagnation.
