Stories of Sandeept

Experiences of a common man!

Category: Politics Page 1 of 3

Democracy beyong voting

Why voting alone is not democracy

By

On March 6, 2026

In Blogging, essay, Humans and Humanity, Politics

Before we begin this article, let’s watch the video below.

Courtesy: 7 News, Australia

The video shows Kim Jong Un being elected as the leader of his Workers’ Party with 100% approval. It’s legitimate voting according to Kim and his sycophants. But we know it’s not democratic. We know what happens to the North Koreans who defy Kim.

On the opposite spectrum is Switzerland, where voter turnout is less than 50%. The low turnout is because of the frequency and complexity of elections. They vote for popular initiatives – petitions filed by the public; for referendums for changing the constitution and laws; and for the election of representatives at different levels.

We also have countries Uruguay and Belgium with voter turnout of over 85% and that are highly democratic.

But then there are countries like Tunisia and Haiti, whose voter turnout in the last elections (2023 and 2015, respectively) sits at 11.4% and 17.8%. These countries have been classified as having poor democratic representation.

These examples paint a complex picture. Countries with both high and low voter turnout are authoritarian. Similarly, democratic countries also have both high and low voter turnouts.

In this article, we explore one aspect: how authoritarian regimes use elections for their legitimacy and why voting alone is not democracy.

“Performing” Democracy

Modern political democracy is a system of governance in which rulers are held accountable for their actions in the public realm by citizens, acting indirectly through the competition and cooperation of their
elected representatives.

—Philippe C. Schmitter and Terry Lynn Karl

A democracy, according to Robert Dahl, Philppe C. Schmitter, and Terry Lynn Karl, should have the following nine procedures:

  1. Control over government decisions about policy is constitutionally vested in elected officials.
  2. Elected officials are chosen in frequent and fairly conducted elections in which coercion is comparatively uncommon.
  3. Practically all adults have the right to vote in the election of officials.
  4. Practically all adults have the right to run for elective offices in the government.
  5. Citizens have a right to express themselves without the danger of severe punishment on political matters broadly defined.
  6. Citizens have a right to seek out alternative sources of information. Alternative sources of information exist and are protected by law.
  7. Citizens have the right to form associations or organizations, including independent political parties and interest groups.
  8. Popularly elected officials must be able to exercise their constitutional powers without being subjected to overriding (albeit informal) opposition from unelected officials.
  9. The polity must be self-governing; it must be able to act independently of constraints imposed by some other overarching political system.

Most people, however, believe that democracy refers to having regular fair elections. This fallacy, known as “procedural fallacy” or “electoralism”, rests on the erroneous faith that the mere act of holding elections will channel political conflict into peaceful contestation and confer legitimacy upon the victors, regardless of the structural conditions under which those elections occur.

Contemporary autocrats have mastered the art of “performing” democracy. They do not abolish institutions; they hollow them out. They do not ban opposition; they render it impotent. They do not cancel elections; they engineer them. They have turned democracy into illusion.

Elections, therefore, do not always equate to democracy.

Competitive Authoritarianism and Rigged Voting

Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way introduced the concept of “Competitive Authoritarianism” to describe regimes that possess the formal architecture of democracy—legislatures, judiciaries, and multiple parties—but where the playing field is so heavily skewed it cannot be considered democratic.

The incumbent often has an advantage over others in competitive authoritarianism because of the following three generations of rigging.

First-Generation (Crude Rigging)

Prevalent during the Cold War and early transition periods, this kind of involves physical ballot stuffing, violent voter suppression, and the overt falsification of tally sheets. This method is high-visibility and high-risk.

The regime of Ferdinand Marcos (1965–1986) in the Philippines provides a quintessential example of Cold War proceduralism. After declaring martial law in 1972 to “save the republic” from communist insurgency, Marcos did not abolish the constitution; he replaced it with the 1973 Constitution, creating a parliamentary framework that concentrated power in his hands.

The 1978 elections for the Batasang Pambansa (Interim National Assembly) were a masterclass in performative democracy. Marcos allowed the opposition coalition, Lakas ng Bayan (LABAN), led by the imprisoned Benigno Aquino Jr., to run in Metro Manila. However, the regime denied LABAN access to media, banned public rallies, and engaged in massive vote-buying. On election day, the result was a clean sweep for Marcos’s Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (KBL) party (21-0 in Manila). The fraud was so blatant that it triggered a “Noise Barrage” protest, yet the U.S. State Department, prioritizing the security of Subic Bay Naval Base and Clark Air Base, accepted the “official” results as a step toward “normalization”.

Marcos repeated this in the 1981 presidential election, which he “won” with 88% of the vote against a token opponent, Alejo Santos, after the legitimate opposition boycotted. Vice President George H.W. Bush’s famous toast to Marcos—“We love your adherence to democratic principles and to the democratic processes”—encapsulated the era’s procedural fallacy: the existence of the process was sufficient for validation, regardless of the principle. It was only when the “Snap Election” of 1986 exposed the regime’s crumbling control and the military defected that the U.S. withdrew support, proving that validation was contingent on the autocrat’s ability to maintain stability, not democracy.

Second-Generation (Institutional Bias)

The second-generation rigging, prevalent in the 1990s and 2000s, includes gerrymandering, the packing of electoral commissions with partisans, and the misuse of state media.

The end of the Cold War fundamentally altered the incentives for autocrats. Overt dictatorships lost international funding and legitimacy. To survive, autocrats had to adopt the full architecture of democracy. This era gave birth to Competitive Authoritarianism, where the struggle was between Western conditionality (linkage and leverage) and the incumbent’s ability to manipulate the level playing field.

Alberto Fujimori’s regime in Peru (1990–2000) serves as a critical case study of how an elected leader can use democratic mandates to destroy democracy. Faced with a hostile Congress and the Shining Path insurgency, Fujimori executed an autogolpe (self-coup) in April 1992, dissolving the legislature and judiciary with military backing.

What followed was a sophisticated use of the procedural fallacy to regain international standing. Under intense pressure from the Organization of American States (OAS), Fujimori did not embrace permanent dictatorship. Instead, he:

  1. Convened a Democratic Constituent Congress (CCD) to draft a new constitution.
  2. Held a referendum to ratify it.
  3. Organized general elections in 1995.

Fujimori won the 1995 election in a landslide (64%) against Javier Pérez de Cuéllar. International observers validated the election as procedurally “acceptable”, effectively washing away the sin of the 1992 coup. This validation ignored the underlying reality: the National Intelligence Service (SIN), led by Vladimiro Montesinos, was systematically bribing judges, media owners, and opposition figures to ensure Fujimori’s dominance. The “clean” election of 1995 masked the “dirty” institutional capture, allowing the regime to survive until the Vladivideos scandal exposed the rot in 2000. This case highlighted the danger of international observers focusing on election-day mechanics while ignoring the inter-election destruction of checks and balances.

Third-Generation (Autocratic Legalism)

Prevalent post-2010, the third-generation rigging involves “lawfare” (disqualifying candidates on technicalities), the capture of the judiciary, digital surveillance, internet shutdowns, and the deployment of “zombie observers” to dilute criticism.

The trajectory of Bangladesh under Sheikh Hasina (2009–2024) offers a stark illustration of how the procedural fallacy can eventually lead to regime collapse. Hasina employed progressively more brazen techniques to secure power:

  • 2014: The “Uncontested Election” (BNP boycott leading to 153 uncontested seats).
  • 2018: The “Midnight Election” (allegations of ballot stuffing the night before).
  • 2024: The “Dummy Candidate” Election. To avoid another uncontested poll, the Awami League ran “independent” candidates who were actually party members to create the illusion of competition.

The international reaction to the January 2024 election was polarized. The U.S. and UK declared the elections “not free or fair”. Conversely, India, China, and Russia validated the results, prioritizing strategic partnership. Hasina relied on this geopolitical shield and the veneer of the election to claim legitimacy. However, this “procedural” victory severed the regime’s connection to the populace. Lacking genuine consent, the regime crumbled in August 2024 in the face of student protests, proving that while elections can satisfy foreign allies, they cannot permanently contain domestic rage without substantive legitimacy.

The Controversy of International Legitimacy

The persistence of electoralism is sustained by specific international mechanisms that allow autocrats to shop for legitimacy.

The “Zombie Observer” Phenomenon

Autocrats have neutralized the threat of international election observation by cultivating their own monitoring groups. Regimes in Azerbaijan, Cambodia, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe, invite observers from the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), and various “GONGOs” (Government-Organized NGOs). These missions invariably issue reports declaring the elections “transparent, free, and democratic,” often contradicting the findings of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) or EU. This creates an “epistemic fog,” allowing the autocrat to claim that criticism is merely Western bias and pointing to “international validation” from friendly blocs.

However, the West has also repeatedly established and accepted authoritarian regimes as long as they support their interests. For example, the US and UK intelligence orchestrated the Operation Ajax to overthrow Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, after he attempted to nationalize the British-controlled oil industry. In his place, they restored absolute power to the monarch, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The Shah ruled autocratically with a brutal secret police force (SAVAK) but was heavily armed and supported by the West until he was overthrown in the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Similarly, the West supported the military rule of General Pervez Musharraf (1999–2008) for Pakistan was the frontline state in the “War on Terror”. With this support, General Musharraf conducted a referendum to consolidate his rule in 2002.

The Foreign Aid Trap

Research by Cheeseman and Desrosiers highlights how Western aid can inadvertently strengthen electoral autocracies. By continuing “everyday engagement” and funding “capacity building” for captured institutions (like judiciaries or electoral commissions), donors validate the structures of repression.

  • The “Aid Curse”: In regimes like Rwanda and Uganda, high levels of aid reduce the government’s dependence on tax revenue, making them less accountable to their citizens.
  • Bureaucratic Inertia: Donor agencies are incentivized to move money and demonstrate “technical” success (e.g., “we trained 500 judges”), often ignoring the political reality that those judges are not independent.
  • Inconsistency: The discrepancy in how the West treats elections in strategic partners (Pakistan, Egypt) versus adversaries (Venezuela, Belarus) undermines the moral authority of democratic promotion.

Geopolitical Diversification

The rise of a multipolar world has been a boon for electoral autocrats. China and Russia offer a “no strings attached” alternative to Western validation. For regimes in Bangladesh, Cambodia, and Zimbabwe, the support of Beijing (via the Belt and Road Initiative) and Moscow provides an economic and diplomatic lifeline that renders Western conditionality ineffective. Autocrats can now “look East” for validation if the West demands too much democracy

Elections v/s Rule of Law

If elections are the engine of democracy, the Rule of Law is the chassis. Without a strong legal framework, the engine tears the vehicle apart. The World Justice Project (WJP) Rule of Law Index 2025 provides alarming evidence of a global “Rule of Law Recession” that is accelerating, undermining the very foundations of democratic governance.

The Global Rule of Law Recession

In 2025, the global rule of law continued to deteriorate, with 68% of countries, including Nepal, experiencing a decline in their scores. This represents a significant worsening from the previous year, where 57% of countries declined.

  • Top Performers: The Nordic countries (Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden) and New Zealand continue to set the global standard. These nations demonstrate that high rule of law is inextricably linked to high levels of social trust, low corruption, and generally high voluntary voter turnout.
  • Bottom Performers: Venezuela, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Haiti, and Nicaragua rank lowest. In these nations, the law has ceased to be a constraint on power and has become an instrument of state control.

The Collapse of Checks and Balances

The most concerning trend identified in the WJP 2025 report is the targeted erosion of constraints on government powers. The pillars that are meant to hold the executive branch accountable are crumbling.

  • Legislative Weakness: Legislative checks on executive power declined in 61% of countries. Parliaments are increasingly bypassed by executive decrees or are dominated by super-majorities that act as rubber stamps for the leader’s will.
  • Judicial Capture: The judiciary is the “last line of defense” against executive overreach, yet it is currently losing ground. Judicial independence declined in 61% of countries. When courts are captured, as seen in the 2024 judicial reforms in Mexico which introduced the popular election of judges, the capacity for legal redress vanishes.

Trust Deficit

When a citizen cannot resolve a land dispute fairly or enforce a business contract because the courts are corrupt or inefficient, their trust in the “system” evaporates. This breeds cynicism and paves the way for populist strongmen who promise “justice” through extra-legal means. The data shows a clear correlation: countries with low civil justice scores (e.g., Venezuela, Cambodia) also have the highest levels of democratic dysfunction.

Corruption v/s Democracy

Corruption is not merely a financial crime; it is a solvent that dissolves democracy. The 2024 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) report by Transparency International paints a grim picture of the relationship between graft and governance, revealing a world where anti-corruption efforts have stagnated.

The global average CPI score remains stuck at 43/100, unchanged for over a decade. More than two-thirds of countries score below 50, indicating serious corruption problems.

  • Eastern Europe and Central Asia: This region is trapped in a “vicious cycle” where weak democratic institutions allow corruption to flourish, and the proceeds of that corruption are used to further weaken institutions.
  • Western Europe’s Slide: Even top-performing regions are backsliding. The UK (Rank 20) and other Western European nations have seen scores drop due to issues of “undue influence,” lobbying scandals, and the fraying of ethical standards in public office. This highlights that no democracy is immune to the corrosive effects of money in politics.

The Corruption-Turnout Nexus

The relationship between corruption and voter turnout is complex and context-dependent.

  • The Mobilization Effect: In functioning democracies, high perceptions of corruption can increase turnout as angry citizens mobilize to punish incumbents through voting. This was evident in the 2024 elections in South Africa and Senegal, where frustration with entrenched corruption contributed to significant political shifts and the loss of majorities for ruling parties.
  • The Apathy Effect: In contexts of systemic, endemic corruption, the effect is often the opposite. In Nigeria (CPI Score ~25), low turnout often reflects the widespread belief that the system is so rigged that voting changes nothing. When the electorate believes that all candidates are corrupt, the rational response is disengagement.
  • The Populist Bridge: High corruption perceptions often predict the rise of populist leaders. When “mainstream” parties are viewed as corrupt elites, voters turn to “anti-system” candidates who often dismantle democratic checks under the guise of “draining the swamp.” This narrative has been potent in the US, Brazil, parts of Europe, and in Nepal.

Wealth v/s Democracy

Seymour Martin Lipset’s seminal 1959 modernization theory posited that economic development creates the social conditions—literacy, a robust middle class, and civil society—necessary for democracy. The data from 2024-2025 challenges the universality of this thesis, suggesting a more fractured relationship between wealth and liberty.

The Anomaly of Wealthy Autocracies

The existence of high-income autocracies contradicts the linear Lipset trajectory. Countries like Singapore, Qatar, and the UAE possess high GDP per capita but maintain restrictive political systems.

  • The “Singapore Model”: Singapore ranks 3rd in the CPI (very clean) and has high governance effectiveness (Rank 9 in Governance Index), yet it restricts political pluralism. This represents the “technocratic authoritarian” ideal—a social contract where citizens trade political liberty for economic prosperity and administrative competence.
  • The Rentier State: The Gulf States (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE) use oil rents to buy social peace, effectively severing the link between taxation and representation. The WJP Index shows these nations with relatively high rule of law scores regarding order and security, but abysmal ratings on fundamental rights. This demonstrates that wealth generated through resource extraction does not produce the same democratic pressures as wealth generated through industrialization or innovation.

Wealth Inequality: The Great Distorter

The distribution of wealth appears to be more predictive of democratic health than the aggregate wealth. High GDP per capita in the United States ($75,492 PPP) coexists with significant inequality and decline in democracy.

  • Inequality and Voice: Research on civic engagement indicates that economic inequality skews political influence. In unequal societies, the wealthy have disproportionate access to policymakers through lobbying and campaign finance, while the poor are marginalized. This leads to policies that further entrench inequality, creating a cycle of exclusion.
  • Poverty and Vulnerability: In lower-income democracies, poverty makes the electorate vulnerable to clientelism. Vote buying was recorded in at least 17 national elections in 2024, a direct consequence of economic vulnerability where a vote is sold for immediate subsistence needs rather than cast for long-term policy goals.

Conclusion

As we have seen from history, authoritarians have often arisen from elections and embraced them. Through clandestine operations and rigged international observers, they establish themselves as purveyors of democracy while dismantling democratic institutions. The global decline in rule of law and increasing corruption pose threat to the “rule of the people”.

Voting is necessary for democracy, but it should not be exclusive. As @NotsoLalit says in the embedded tweet, when grievances are reduced to elections, democracy becomes a formality and free pass for politicians to make promises without delivering anything. Also, a sustainable democracy is not limited to the tenure of elected representatives. It has to be a continuous process.

Ensuring meaningful participation of people at all levels is the key to strengthening democratic institutions. Moreover, without a restoration of the rule of law, the ballot box risks becoming nothing more than a coffin for liberty. The task ahead is not just to get out the vote, but to ensure that the vote still matters.

Divisive Party Politics

Party Politics: Terrifying Divisions

By

On February 11, 2026

In Opinion, Blogging, Politics

In the ever-illusory modern democracy, party politics plays a significant role in organizing people, speaking for the well-being and development of the country, and raising voices against tyranny. However, parties often delve into demagoguery. And while the intraparty unity keeps cadres together (at times, to the level of sycophancy), interparty rivalries can sow divisions among the citizens even in issues related to humanity or national interests. Schisms have deepened so much that even families are fragmenting. Individuals have been atomized so much that the parties—the purveyors of democracy—have become authoritarian.

How Political Parties Create Divisions

Because there are individuals and groups that think differently about how politics should be conducted, many ideologies have developed over time. A political party sets its goals and the means of achieving goals according to the ideology it adopts. Ideology also allows parties to adopt the form of governance, such as autocracy, democracy, or theocracy, and the economic system, like capitalism, socialism, communism, and so on. These economic systems have also come to be defined as political ideologies on their own.

In most countries, political ideologies adopted by parties can be divided into left-wing and right-wing. The terminologies originated during the French Revolution in 1789. The supporters of traditional values and hierarchy sat to the right of the king in the National Assembly, whereas the revolutionaries demanding radical changes sat to his left. Eventually, right-wing politics adopted conservative philosophy, advocating limited government, free market capitalism, and strict immigration policies. Similarly, the left wing took up liberal philosophy, demanding equality, government market intervention, and more open immigration policies.

However, despite the relevance of the left-right framework as an analytical tool for understanding political competition, it simplifies a more complex reality. In some contexts, parties combine elements from both traditions; others may shift positions over time in response to social change.

Political parties may also be defined by the strategies they use to forward their ideologies and actions. They may be populists, where a single charismatic leader guides or directs followers, or issue-based, seeking to solve various issues even in the absence of a charming leader. Most parties flock around one or a few leaders and also carry issues that need to be solved.

In Nepal, a new kind of division has emerged in the recent decade. There are the older parties that stick to positions of power and are seen as corrupt. In the opposite spectrum are the newer parties that are cleaner, less experienced alternatives. This assortment is a result of generational conflict stemming from the indifference of the older generations to the voice of the younger citizens.

Even though the ideologies, philosophies, and strategies are often blurry, political parties present themselves as strictly adhering to a certain ideology, philosophy, or strategy. These are etched in the intraparty laws, policy papers, various publications, and eventually, in the minds of the followers. Parties may not explicitly say they are divisive, but the ideas become so indelible that they cannot accept the other spectrum. Party politics most often radicalize followers so much that they become their defenders even at the cost of their lives.

Depth of the Schisms

As if the vertical divisions of left- and right-wing politics were insufficient, political parties have now promoted horizontal divisions between generations. Radicalization of party followers and cadres has driven deep wedges between individuals, families, society, and even nations.

Politicization has reached such a serious state that no individual can be trusted. Opposing ideas are bashed immediately—online masks aggravating the issue even more. Fathers and sons, mothers and daughters, and brothers and sisters have petty fights in support of their political parties and ideologies. Moreover, political paradigms have turned into identities of societies and nations, sowing a deep sense of betrayal against those who oppose the views.

Consequences

The divisive party politics affects individuals, families, societies, and nations at different levels, ranging from discussions that can be solved easily to complexities resulting in wars involving different nations.

1. Solvable differences

Ideological differences can create intense debates. However, some of them can be solved by identifying common grounds and interests. Spectrums of ideas exist within the extreme ends of left and right. While extremities tend to dehumanize issues, the ideas in the middle are more humane and achievable. Solving differences between ideologies also leads to improved relations between the political actors.

2. Passionate rows and rivalries

Humans tend to cooperate to fulfill their interest, but more often, they love to maintain rivalry with those who have opposing views. Party politics enjoys maintaining rivalries because they (1) divide and rule, (2) have their ego inflated when they are proven correct, and (3) win elections when the opposing ideologies fail.

3. Ad hominem attacks

Disputes don’t always get solved, though. And parties don’t always involve ideologies. Ad hominem attacks, or personal slanders, are becoming increasingly common in political speeches. Because of the rising popularity of a leader and lack of impunity, rivalries become personal. As such, ideologies become obsolete, and cults develop around the leader. Loyal henchmen, in coordination of cabals, surround their cult leader.

4. Dishonesty/Moral corruption

Cults separate political leadership from the actual political realities. Obsequious henchmen inflate the ego. The leader and his party start believing that they are invincible. Corruption prevails. Rule of law is thrown out of the window. Dishonesty and immoral behaviours become the norm. Citizens become more divided.

5. Mob violence

Divisions sown by political parties, coupled with corruption, give rise to violence in societies. As impunity prevails, crimes get normalized. Cadres and supporters of political parties turn increasingly violent against rivals. Mob justice becomes the norm.

6. National disruption

Crowd psychology is different from that of the individuals in isolation. The increased intensity of mob violence can result in disruptions at national levels. If the parties who are in power suppress the dissent, they turn more authoritative. If they are displaced, the new forces are called revolutionaries. But if a revolution brings destruction and little to no hope, is it really a revolution?

7. Foreign Interference and Proxy Conflicts

Extreme polarization from party politics makes a nation vulnerable to foreign interference. When domestic parties prioritize defeating their rivals over national interest, they often seek external alliances to gain an upper hand. Consequently, the nation becomes a chessboard for larger geopolitical powers. By openly aligning with foreign regimes or accepting outside backing, domestic political parties act as proxies. This not only compromises the country’s sovereignty but can also drag citizens into prolonged, devastating proxy conflicts that serve foreign interests rather than local needs.

8. International Wars

Partisan politics does not remain confined within national borders. When political ideologies become rigid and moralized—portraying opponents not merely as rivals but as existential threats—such polarization can extend into foreign policy. States governed by highly ideological parties may begin to interpret international relations through the same lens of division that shapes domestic politics.

The twentieth century offers a significant illustration. The prolonged confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War was rooted not only in geopolitical competition but also in ideological antagonism between liberal capitalism and communism. Although it did not escalate into direct large-scale war between the two superpowers, it generated proxy conflicts across Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Domestic political rhetoric in both countries reinforced the perception that compromise was weakness and coexistence was morally suspect.

Countering the Political Divide

Supporting a political ideology and debating against rivals can feel satisfying, but as we saw, dissent can spiral down to a dangerous territory. We should thus be careful not to allow party politics to disrupt the well-being of individuals, societies, and nations. Following are the suggestions to promote healthy discussions and debates.

1. Empathy

Ideological debates without empathy can easily turn into ad hominem attacks. If you understand why a person follows certain ideas about politics, you can agree with them on common matters. Even if you don’t, you can gracefully acknowledge their shortcomings. Such debates and discussions also help identify common ground.

2. Educating yourself about various ideologies

Political thoughts and actions don’t originate and arise in a vacuum. They are rooted in the conditions of society and their aspirations. When you learn about political ideologies, you know their origin, the goals they want to achieve, and the means to support them. As a result, you build empathy. You may also develop a new ideology from the analysis of shortcomings of the existing ideologies and expectations of your society.

3. Dissociation from party politics

Sometimes taking sides can be difficult. In such cases, if you dissociate from the ways parties think and operate, you can see the bigger picture. Thinking beyond the established rhetoric helps you identify the issues at hand, the stance taken by the parties, and their strengths and shortcomings. Such an analysis ultimately helps strengthen the rule of law and democracy.

4. Unity in humanitarian or national issues

If you are debating for or against a party or ideology, even in cases against dignified living, human rights, and national issues, take a break to think about how party politics has divided the people. Take measures to bridge gaps with the opposition and solve problems empathetically. If your party or ideology is not allowing you to take selfless actions, you will be doomed.

Conclusion

Political parties are indispensable to democratic governance. They organize representation, structure public debate, and provide mechanisms for accountability. Yet when loyalty to party eclipses commitment to constitutional principles, human dignity, and the rule of law, democratic competition can deteriorate into polarization and exclusion. Ideologies, which are meant to guide collective aspirations, may instead harden into identities that promote divisions and resist dialogue and compromise.

Unchecked party politics narrows the space for reasoned deliberation. It encourages citizens to perceive opponents as adversaries rather than fellow participants in a shared political community. Over time, such attitudes weaken social trust and strain the institutional foundations of democracy itself.

Countering this trajectory requires conscious civic effort. Empathy, intellectual openness, and a willingness to engage ideas critically rather than defensively can help preserve pluralism. Democratic societies thrive not in the absence of disagreement, but in their ability to manage disagreement constructively.

If citizens remain attentive to shared constitutional values and humanitarian principles beyond party lines, political competition need not become social fragmentation. The challenge is not to eliminate party politics, but to prevent it from eroding the very democratic culture it is meant to sustain.

Smash & Grab: Annexation of Sikkim—A Review

By

On January 30, 2026

In Book Review, History, International Relations & Diplomacy, Politics

How does a country merge with another? Does a referendum held within 72 hours have legal validity? How do foreigners play in domestic issues? Indian journalist and editor Sunanda K. Dutta-Ray, who was close to the Chogyal of Sikkim (Sukhim/Denzong), explores these issues in detail in Smash & Grab: Annexation of Sikkim.

Book Cover of Smash & Grab: Annexation of Sikkim by Sunanda K. Datta-Ray

A Brief History of Sikkim

Independent Existence and British Shadows

Sikkim had an independent existence even before the Treaty of Sugauli between Nepal and the British East India Company in 1815. In 1642, Phuntsog Namgyal had become the first Chogyal of Sikkim. The term Chogyal is derived from Tibetan, which means ‘the gyalpo (king) who defends the chho (Dharma). After the Treaty of Tumlong in 1861, Sikkim, which was a British protectorate, became a protectorate of India when India became independent.

Plights as the Protectorate of India

Ever since India became independent from the British, the feeling that a republic should not have a monarchical protectorate had developed in the Indian administration. Nehru did not consider it a big deal. But in 1951, China established complete control over Tibet. After the Tibetan uprising in 1959 and the war with China in 1962, India became suspicious. Due to the religious-cultural ties between Lhasa and Gangtok, fearing that China might also take over Sikkim, India came to the side of annexing Sikkim.

However, since it had a democratic image and had helped Bangladesh gain independence, it was not possible for India to launch a direct military attack. Similarly, India controlled the communications, foreign affairs, and resources necessary for the development of Sikkim. The British colonial period also continued to interfere internally through political officials and chief executives.

Shifting Demographics, Politics, and Indian Interests

After the British protection, Nepali-speaking traders entered Sikkim, which was created by the Bhutia-Lepchas, in large numbers. By the 1970s, the Bhutia-Lepchas were only 25 per cent, i.e., a minority in their own country. However, since the power was with them, the majority Nepali-speaking people were afraid that something would happen. There were Kazis of all castes, but their power was waning as the Chhogyals had limited authority. During the power struggle, they began to seek democratic rights.

Lendup Dorji was one such Kazi. He did not have a good relationship with the Chogyal Palden Thondup Namgyal, who was based in Kalingpong. The rift between them widened after the Chogyal married Hope Cook and the Kazi married Elisa Marie. The Chogyal, who was trying to make Sikkim independent, lost popularity due to the Indians and their propaganda. A dictatorial rakshyah became his public image. On the other hand, leaders like the Kazi, Nar Bahadur Khatiwada, and Ramchandra Paudyal, who were trying to establish democracy, became widely praised.

With the involvement of Indian political officials, diplomats, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and the intelligence agency RAW, the Chogyal was constantly weakened, and after the 1973 movement, the Kazi was gradually made powerful. Ashok Raina’s ‘Inside RAW’ says that this movement was run by RAW. However, the real power lies with the Indian Chief Executive. B.S. Das starts working above Chogyal. After him, B.B. Lal becomes the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and even assumes the powers of the Chief Justice.

The Referendum for Annexation of Sikkim

On April 14, 1975, he proposes the merger of Sikkim with India after the referendum. But Dutta-Ray makes a big question mark about the plebiscite being announced on the 10th, the voting on the 14th, and the results coming out overnight from remote places. Most people did not understand what the voting was for. Most of them thought it had been done to remove Chogyal as the head of the nation. Even journalists were not given proper access during the polls. Nar Bahadur Khatiwada later sent a memorandum to Morarji Desai, the Prime Minister after Indira Gandhi, saying that they were deceived. Former Prime Minister of Nepal Bishweshwor Prasad Koirala said that there was no referendum in Sikkim.

My Feelings on the book Smash & Grab: Annexation of Sikkim

Reading about how the simple-minded Chogyal and leaders of Sikkim were manipulated by clever Indians, I felt love for Sikkim and anger towards Indians. The Chogyal also seems to be at fault for not understanding the geopolitical pressures. Moreover, he could not reconcile with Lhendup Dorji on common national interests. Dorji, too, was so blinded by the prospect of gaining power over the Chogyal that he did not understand that he was only a pawn in the grand chessboard of geopolitics.

Datta-Ray weaves movie-like stories of characters, some of which are extremely moving, especially at the beginning. The ending, however, is abrupt. Since the book was first published in 1984, nine years after the annexation, the aftermath of the annexation could have been included, but it is not there. Moreover, the book has a high level of vocabulary, which slowed my reading.

One problem I have realised in reading the history of Sikkim is that there are several points of view. Smash & Grab: Annexation of Sikkim is biased towards Chogyal in the book. Angles from the “revolutionaries” in Sikkim, Indian bureaucrats, diplomats, and RAW agents portray different pictures. I will be back with those perspectives as soon as possible.

An infographic about Nepal's current constitutional crisis

Nepal’s Constitutional Crisis: When a 27-Hour Protest Rewrites the Rules of Power

By

On December 3, 2025

In Constitution Study, Blogging, Nepal, Nepali, Politics

Constitution Study #14: Clash of the Constitutional Mandate and Popular Uprising

A Nation at a Constitutional Crossroads

In a move that has shaken Nepal’s political foundations, the Gen Z-led anti-corruption movement on September 8-9 swept the KP Sharma Oli government from power. In the ensuing political vacuum, President Ramchandra Paudel executed an unprecedented solution: the September 12 appointment of former chief justice Sushila Karki as interim Prime Minister. This decision, followed by the dissolution of the House of Representatives, was hailed by some as a necessary response to the popular will but has plunged the nation into its most profound constitutional crisis yet.

An infographic about Nepal's current constitutional crisis

This is more than a mere political debate; it is a fundamental stress test of Nepal’s young constitution. The appointment has ignited a fierce legal battle, pitting the raw power of popular sovereignty against the established bulwarks of judicial precedent and the separation of powers. As ten petitions challenging the government’s legitimacy land at the Supreme Court, Nepal is forced to confront a question that will define its democratic future: Are the rules that govern the state absolute, or can they be rewritten by the force of a people’s movement?

1. The Blueprint for Power: How Nepal’s Executive is Supposed to Work

The current crisis is unintelligible without a firm grasp of Nepal’s constitutional blueprint for executive power, specifically the procedures laid out in Part-7 of the Constitution. Article 74 establishes a “multi-party competitive federal democratic republican parliamentary form of governance.” This framework is not merely a suggestion; it is the binding charter for political legitimacy.

At its core, Article 76 provides a clear, step-by-step process for appointing a Prime Minister. The President is to appoint the leader of the parliamentary party that commands a majority in the House of Representatives. Recognizing the complexities of coalition politics, the article also provides a sequence of fallback options in clauses (2), (3), and (5) for scenarios where no single party holds a majority. This constitutional playbook is the only established path to forming a government, which the recent political rupture cast aside.

2. The Political Rupture: A Protest, a President, and an Unprecedented Appointment

The crisis unfolded with breathtaking speed. Following the ousting of the KP Sharma Oli government by a massive Gen Z-led anti-corruption movement on September 8-9, the nation’s political order was upended. On September 12, President Ramchandra Paudel, acting on the recommendation of movement representatives, appointed former chief justice Sushila Karki to lead an interim government. On Prime Minister Karki’s recommendation, the President then dissolved the House of Representatives and gave the new government a six-month mandate to conduct parliamentary elections, scheduled for March 5. This rapid sequence of events, occurring over just a few days, bypassed the established constitutional process and triggered an immediate judicial backlash in the form of ten petitions filed in the Supreme Court.

These petitions challenge two distinct but deeply intertwined actions: the formation of Karki’s government and her subsequent recommendation to dissolve the House. The challenge to Karki’s appointment is therefore foundational; if her premiership is deemed unconstitutional, then her recommendation to dissolve the House—the second major point of contention—is invalid from the start.

3. The Core of the Controversy: Can a Former Chief Justice Become Prime Minister?

The petitioners’ case against Sushila Karki’s premiership hinges on a direct, literal reading of a single constitutional clause designed to safeguard judicial independence. They argue that her appointment as Prime Minister is an unambiguous breach of Article 132 (2), which is intended to prevent the politicization of the judiciary. The article states:

“No person who has once held the office of Chief Justice or a Justice of the Supreme Court shall be eligible for appointment to any government office, except as otherwise provided for in this Constitution.”

However, a sophisticated counter-argument has emerged, positing that this clause does not apply to the prime ministership. Ram Lohani, Associate Professor, Tribhuvan University first argues that the Prime Minister’s post is not an office that the President “assigns” someone to work in. Whereas the President has discretion in other appointments, Article 76 obligates the President to appoint any person who meets the constitutional criteria, such as commanding a majority. The Prime Minister is therefore not “put to work” by the President but rather assumes an office by constitutional right.

This leads to the second, crucial distinction: the difference between a “government office” and a “political post“. Lohani argues that Article 132’s prohibition applies only to the former. He notes that other constitutional articles, such as 238(8) and 240(8), explicitly permit former members of constitutional commissions to hold “political posts” while barring them from other “government service.” This distinction, he argues, implies that political roles like Prime Minister fall outside the scope of the prohibition placed on former justices. This clash between a literal interpretation and a nuanced, structural one lies at the heart of the legal controversy.

4. A Dissolved House: Constitutional Move or a Breach of Precedent?

The second constitutional challenge targets the dissolution of the House of Representatives, an act petitioners claim is both unconstitutional and a direct repudiation of the Supreme Court’s own landmark rulings. The argument carries significant weight, as:

“The court had reinstated the House of Representatives twice after it was dissolved by the then Oli-led government in 2020 and 2021. It had ruled that the constitution envisions a full five-year term for the lower house.”

Petitioners contend that in endorsing the dissolution, President Paudel violated his primary duty under Article 61: “to abide by and protect the Constitution.”

In response, supporters of the move, including some constitutional experts, frame the dissolution not as a legal breach but as a “political solution to a political problem.” They argue that the extraordinary circumstances, born from a popular uprising against a failing political class, demand a departure from rigid legalism. This perspective is articulated forcefully by senior advocate Dinesh Tripathi:

“In the changed context, decisions should be made accordingly by the court. This is the change brought about by a political movement.”

This viewpoint asks the court to prioritize the perceived spirit of political change over its own carefully constructed precedent, presenting a direct challenge to the court’s role as the ultimate arbiter of constitutional text.

Conclusion: Law, Spirit, and the Path Forward

Nepal now stands at a precipice, forced to reconcile the rigid text of its Constitution with the undeniable force of a popular movement demanding a political reset. The creation of an extra-parliamentary government and the dissolution of the House represent a profound departure from the constitutional order, justified by its architects as a necessary response to an existential crisis of governance.

The Supreme Court’s impending decision will be its most consequential to date. The verdict will not only determine the legality of Karki’s government but, more importantly, will define the very nature of Nepal’s constitutional democracy. At stake is a fundamental question:

Is this a singular, emergency-driven deviation from the rules, or does it set a precedent for a new, extra-constitutional pathway to power that could be abused in the future?

The court’s ruling will determine whether Nepal’s democratic institutions are resilient enough to withstand political storms or fragile enough to break under the weight of popular pressure.

Democracy symbols

Why Modern Democracy is an Illusion

By

On November 24, 2025

In Opinion, Blogging, Nepal, Politics

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.
A megaphone symbolizing How To Speak in an Oppressive Political Environment

How To Speak in an Oppressive Political Environment

By

On July 15, 2025

In How To, Politics

“You may speak, but can you speak wisely?”
“You may protest, but can you do so without giving them an excuse to silence you?”

Article 17 of the Constitution of Nepal guarantees Freedom of Expression. It also introduces reasonable restrictions, which of course, can be misused. About two weeks ago, a popular YouTube channel, In-Depth Story (IDS) had to close its merchandise store IDS Wears for selling T-shirts with the slogan Kera Ganatantra (Banana Republic) for “disturbing the sovereignty, national unity, and dignity of the country, and so on.” The slogan was provocative and somewhat double meaning. But did it have to be banned? I don’t think so.

Around a month back, Rama Basnet from Khotang was arrested for expressing her frustration towards politicians in few TikTok videos. The words she chose mocked a politician’s disability. However, she got support from the opposition party because of the way she was arrested.

These examples speak volumes about the awareness of the constitution and laws we have as citizen. We know we can speak, but we often don’t know how to speak. We’ve heard of rights, but rarely do we hear about the restrictions that come along with them. And that’s when we trip over.

Let’s get straight to it. Here are a few principles that might save our voice and case, while upholding the law.

1. Say Less. Mean More.

Power doesn’t like being called out, but artists and writers use often use metaphors, satire, and symbolism to mock it.

George Orwell’s Animal Farm is truly metaphoric and symbolic. Using pigs, horses, and other farm animals, Orwell mocks Soviet Communism and warns how an ideal can become exploitative.

Another symbolism I vividly remember is that of a new politician in Sanjeev Upreti’s Ghanachakkar. When there is an announcement that a flawless leader has arrived in Kathmandu, the narrator goes to see him. However, in no time, the leader turns into an onion. The multi-layered towering onion is a metaphor for secrecy, corruption, and inflated ego of politicians in Nepal.

So, our best bet is to be poetic and ambiguous. Let the reader add two and two.

But can satire backfire?

Did you notice the word “bet”? Actually, I am reminded of Krishna Lal Adhikari’s story. He was a Nayab Subba during the rule of Chandra Shamsher. His duties in the field of agriculture gave him a lot of knowledge on maize plantation and published a scientific book titled, “Makai ko Kheti.” Some sycophants, however, saw it as a mockery against Chandra Shamsher and his generals. Although Adhikari never meant to satire, he was tried and imprisoned for nine years until he died of tuberculosis.

So, yeah. We still need to be careful while using symbols and metaphors.

2. Displace the Target

We don’t talk about today’s leaders directly. Talking about a character or an imaginary village or a tyrannical ruler from history will work. Readers will connect the dots. Not everything needs to be spelled out.

But we still need to remember Krishna Lal Adhikari and be cautious.

3. Borrow Their Language

The safest thing we can do is use the Constitution, parliamentary and other recorded speeches. We can quote government slogans back at them. When the system tries to silence you, reply with its own words. Just like the leaders and stooges owned the insult of Jhole as a treasure, we should own up the laws and use them to our advantage. It’s hard to arrest someone for saying what’s written or in accordance with the law.

We should use your rights and stand tall before the law. But power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We should be careful not to assume the state will honour them fairly.

4. Protest Creatively, Not Predictably

Instead of shouting in front of microphones, we can try standing silently with a placard. Ujjwal Thapa and his party did it successfully. We can also post an ironic meme or writing a children’s story (like Orwell) that says what the editorial can’t.

From Occupy Baluwatar to Jayatu Sanskritam, peaceful creativity has always been harder to crush than violent slogans.

5. Build a Chorus

One person speaking is a complaint. Ten thousand people speaking is a movement. If you’re afraid of being targeted, amplify others—and let them amplify you. Even whisper campaigns can be effective when they echo.

But It’s Still Dangerous

Today, we can be investigated for a Facebook post, dragged into court over a short story, and even labelled a traitor for asking questions. I’ve felt the chill myself while writing. I wonder at times: Is this going too far? Will this get me in trouble?

This Isn’t Fair!

Yes, nobody should have to think this hard before speaking. But when expression is policed, speech must become strategy.

This isn’t a call for cowardice. It’s a call for craft.
This isn’t about avoiding the truth. It’s about delivering it smartly enough to survive.

Speak. Silence protects no one. But speak like you know someone powerful is listening. And looking for an excuse to catch you.

And yet, here I am.

Because what’s the alternative? Silence? Cynicism? That’s not living. That’s waiting.

To Speak Is to Build Justice

The truth is: oppression isn’t just about silencing people. It’s about systemic injustice. It’s about making them believe that speech doesn’t matter. That it won’t change anything. But it does. It always has.

Change begins with someone saying, This is wrong.
It grows when someone else says, I agree.
And it becomes unstoppable when people say it together even if they just have to whisper.

नेपालीहरूलाई बोल्न रोक लगाइएको साङ्केतिक चित्र

बोल्न पाइन्छ ?

By

On June 16, 2025

In नेपाली, Humans and Humanity, Politics

बोल्नलाई बोल्न त पाइन्छ
बोल्ने पनि तरिका चाहिन्छ


स्वप्न सुमन र अभिज्ञा घिमिरेको गीत सुन्दै फेसबुक स्क्रोल गर्दै थिएँ । समाचार देखियो – रवि लामिछानेलाई समर्थन गर्दै प्रधानमन्त्रीको आलोचना गरेको भन्दै एक महिला पक्राउ । अस्तितिर दिलभूषण पाठकलाई हिल्टन होटलका बारेमा समाचार बनाएपछि पक्राउ गरेको खबर आएको थियो । अलि अघि सिधाकुराले मुद्दा मामिलामा हुने लेनदेनको विषयमा सार्वजनिक गरेको डार्क फाइल्स अदालतको अनादर गरेको भन्दै उक्त सामग्री हटाउन लगाइएको थियो । पछि सामग्री नै फेक हो भनेर तीनजनालाई कारबाही भएको थियो । अझै अगाडि सरकारले सामाजिक सद्भाव बिगारेको भन्दै टिकटकलाई प्रतिबन्ध गरेको थियो । झन्डै एक वर्षपछि प्रतिबन्ध फुकुवा भयो ।

यी घटनाहरू केलाउँदा लोकतन्त्र, गणतन्त्रमा बोल्न पाइन्छ भन्नेहरू अहिले आफैँ विरोधको अवाज बन्द गर्न तल्लीन देखिन्छन् । अभिव्यक्तिको स्वतन्त्रता संविधानको धारा १७ द्वारा प्रदत्त अधिकार हो । यसले कुनै विचारलाई निषेध गर्न नपाइने व्यवस्था गरेको छ । त्यस्तै, धारा १९ ले कुनै प्रसारण माध्यममा प्रकाशित सामग्रीकै कारण कसैलाई पक्राउ नगरिने कुरा सुनिश्चित छ ।

तर संविधानले नै सार्वभौमसत्ता र अखण्डताको रक्षा, व्यक्तिगत गोपनीयता र मर्यादाको सम्मानजस्ता विषयमा मनासिब प्रतिबन्ध लगाउन पाइने व्यवस्था पनि गरेको छ । र यसकै दुरुपयोग गरेर सत्ता र सत्ताको नजिक हुनेले आफ्ना विरोधमा आउने आवाज दबाउन थालेका छन् । अझ अनलाइनमा प्रकाशन हुने सामग्रीको विषयमा कानूनमा भएको लुपहोल प्रयोग गरेर दु:ख पनि बढी नै दिन थालेका छन् ।

यस्तो किन हुन्छ ? स्वतन्त्रता सङ्ग्राम कथामा लेखेको छु :

सत्ता सधैँ प्रशंसाको भोको हुन्छ । थोरै आलोचना पनि उसलाई बिझ्छ ।

तर आलोचना सहन नसक्ने सत्ताधारीलाई ठीक पार्ने ब्रह्मास्त्र खरो आलोचना नै हो । ब्रायन मार्टिन पुस्तक इन्फर्मेसन लिबरेसनमा लेख्छन्,

“आलोचना गर्दा निष्कर्ष दिने भन्दा पनि तथ्यहरू प्रस्तुत गरिदिनुस् । सही गलतको निर्णय पाठक/श्रोताले गर्नेछन् ।”

उनी थप्छन्,

“कुनै नेताले भ्रष्टाचारी हो भन्नुभन्दा उसलाई यो कम्पनीले यति रकम बुझायो भनिदिनुस् ।”

र

“जुन कुरा भन्नुहुन्छ त्यसको ठोस प्रमाण सङ्कलन गर्नुस् अनि आफ्ना साथीभाइ र अरूहरूलाई पठाउनुस् ।”

अहिलेको परिस्थितिमा बोल्न गाह्रो छ । बोल्न भने छाडिन्न । त्यसैले जे बोलिन्छ, तथ्य सहित बोल्नुपर्ने छ । र त :

बोल्नलाई बोल्न त पाइन्छ
बोल्ने पनि तरिका चाहिन्छ

A hand with closed fist breaking out of chained handcuff symbolising the right to freedom

Freedom in Nepal: Constitutional Guarantees, Legal Limits, and the Danger of Silencing Dissent

By

On May 28, 2025

In Constitution Study, Nepal, Nepali, Politics

Constitution Study #6: How Free Are We?

Freedom—a term we instinctively link with democracy. We think of freedom in Nepal as the right to speak, to question, to move, to protest, and to live with dignity within its territory. Article 17 of the Constitution of Nepal boldly declares this right for every citizen. And yet, in the lived experience of many Nepalis, freedom feels conditional, fragile, and at times, dangerous.

So, what does the Constitution really say about freedom? Where does it draw the line? And how can the very right meant to empower citizens be used to suppress dissent?

What Does Article 17 Say?

Article 17 of the Constitution enshrines the Right to Freedom under six broad categories:

  1. Freedom of opinion and expression
  2. Freedom to assemble peacefully
  3. Freedom to form political parties
  4. Freedom to form unions and associations
  5. Freedom to move and reside anywhere in Nepal
  6. Freedom to practice any profession or business

At first glance, this seems an expansive and a robust shield for democracy. But behind this promise lie several restrictions, some of which are reasonable and others, potentially oppressive.

The Catch: “Reasonable Restrictions”

Each of these freedoms comes with legal qualifiers. The Constitution allows laws to curtail freedoms to protect:

  • Sovereignty, territorial integrity, and national independence
  • Public morality and decency
  • Harmonious relations between communities
  • Security, law and order
  • National secrecy and integrity
  • Reputation, judicial authority, and professional standards

On paper, these restrictions aim to prevent chaos. In reality, they can, and have been, used to silence criticism and criminalize dissent. Let’s explore these restrictions in practice.

Nepal’s Constitution establishes constitutional sovereignty, where power flows through constitutional institutions, not directly from the people. Article 2 declares that sovereignty lies with the people, but only as exercised through the Constitution. (See my earlier article: Can Nepal Restore Monarchy?)

Here’s the paradox:

  • Popular sovereignty suggests the people can question, challenge, and even revise the system.
  • But constitutional sovereignty sets limits — including on what people may say or do in the name of reform.

This tension becomes visible when:

  • Protesters are arrested for demanding structural change.
  • Critics are charged with contempt for questioning judicial decisions. In Chapter 6 of the book, Information Liberation, Brian Martin explains how defamation laws can curtail free speech.
  • Political parties are threatened with bans for pushing ideas seen as “anti-sovereign.”

The question is: Who defines sovereignty — and in whose interest?

Freedom and the Fear of Dissent

Over the years, we’ve seen numerous cases, in Nepal as well as around the globe, where government has used vague terms like “morality,” “nationality,” and “sovereignty” to stifle dissent.

In these cases, freedom seems to protect the powerful, not a sword for justice.

Why This Matters

As citizens, we must ask:

  • Who defines “morality” and “national interest”?
  • Are the laws protecting people, or protecting power?
  • Is the Constitution a living reflection of the people’s will, or a mechanism to control it?

Freedom cannot flourish in a society where criticism is feared, and where laws are used as weapons to silence those without power.

Exercising Freedom Responsibly

Freedom is not just a right — it’s a responsibility. We must exercise it with:

  • Respect for others’ rights
  • Honesty and courage
  • Awareness of consequences

But responsibility does not mean silence. True responsibility means using your voice to speak for truth, justice, and the dignity of all — even when it’s uncomfortable.

Final Reflection

The Right to Freedom in Nepal is both a constitutional guarantee and a battleground. We must defend it, not just on paper, but in practice — through protest, art, speech, storytelling, and solidarity.

Definitions of betrayal and treason raise urgent questions. Is it treason to question authority, or is it more treacherous to quietly erode the sovereignty of the people through corruption, abuse of power, and fear?

“To question your nation is not to betray it. To silence those questions is.”

For us to truly thrive, we must embrace the idea that sovereignty belongs to the people, not to political elites, not to closed institutions. It’s time we rise together to make that truth real, with our words, our actions, and our unwavering courage.

State and Nation Building

State and Nation in the Constitution of Nepal

By

On May 18, 2025

In Constitution Study, Nepal, Politics

Constitution Study #3: Between promises and practices of state- and nation-building

State and Nation Building
State and Nation Building (Generated using AI)

Reading the Constitution of Nepal can be frustrating when similar words represent different meanings. For instance, the words “state” and “nation” interchangeably in casual conversations and articles, and at times, even in political discourses. The Constitution, however, formally defines them as different concepts and dreams of a just, inclusive, and united Nepal. But, as anyone who has walked through a village neglected by development or spoken with someone whose language isn’t recognized in state institutions knows, dreams don’t always unfold as promised.

In this article, I explore the definitions and distinctions of the concepts of “state” and “nation” and critically examine the ongoing projects of state-building and nation-building within Nepal’s constitutional and socio-political context.

1. Constitutional Definitions of State and Nation

i. State:

Article 4 defines Nepal as an:

“… independent, indivisible, sovereign, secular, inclusive, democratic, socialism-oriented, federal democratic republican state.”

The State is thus, a legal and political construct designed to exercise authority, ensure rights, and deliver governance. It represents the political system, power separation and division of political units.

The Nepal State is constituted by its independence, constitutional and popular sovereignty (Articles 1 and 2), and democratic and federal institutions (federal, provincial, local).

ii. Nation:

Article 3 declares:

All the Nepali people, with multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, multi-religious, multicultural characteristics and in geographical diversities, and having common aspirations and being united by a bond of allegiance to national independence, territorial integrity, national interest and prosperity of Nepal, collectively constitute the nation.

The definition of Nation says that it is a socio-cultural construct based on shared historical experiences and collective aspirations. It is the culmination of the Nepali people—from Olangchung Gola, Taplejung to Chandani-Dodhara, Kailali to Limpiyadhura, Darchula to Kechana, Jhapa—in their diverse identities, cultures, and their interests, desire for independence and territorial integrity. A nation is, therefore, upheld by its people, united by common goals in spite of differences among themselves.

The Preamble of the Constitution also emphasizes the sovereignty of the people and unity in diversity.

2. State-building: Structures and Challenges

i. Structures Created

The Constitution has created a three-tiered federal system with a complex web of institutions and governance structures. The primary aim of federalism is for decentralization of power and resources, while enhancing accessibility to basic services among common people.

ii. Challenges:

Despite the Constitutional promise, federalism in Nepal has faced several challenges, including, but not limited to,

  • Capacity gaps and coordination issues between levels of government.
  • Insufficient and complicated legal provisions, for example, provincial laws on civil service came out before the federal law, creating confusion and chaos.
  • Weak implementation of laws and fiscal federalism.
  • Political instability affecting Federal and Provincial levels.
  • Patronage-driven bureaucracy.
  • Public disillusionment due to unmet expectations.

The current state of state-building in Nepal is seen not only in frustrated youths going abroad but also in leaders who won elections believing they could bring some change. The frustration is slowly converting to rage, displayed through protests, riots, and extra-constitutional demands of monarchy. What comes out of it will depend on various factors, prominent among them, popular sovereignty, discussed in this article.

3. Nation-building: Identity, Inclusion, and Discord

i. Efforts:

Nation-building encourages the feeling of ownership among all the Nepali people irrespective of their origin, languages, cultures, and traditions. The Constitution commits proportional inclusion and participation. It legally recognises indigenous nationalities, languages, and cultures. It also sets up affirmative actions in civil service, education, and representation.

While constitutional provisions for inclusion are commendable, true nation-building demands more than legal recognition. It requires a reconciliation with past injustices, the crafting of shared national narratives that embrace all Nepalis, and reforms in education that foster empathy, dignity, and mutual respect. Without these cultural and psychological foundations, legal measures risk becoming hollow gestures.

Several civil servants and schoolteachers are in their positions today because of these provisions, and the strengthening of commissions like the Public Service Commission (PSC). The change is palpable. These changes demonstrate the Constitution’s strength and make me hopeful, but the gaps in implementation are hurting the sentiments of the constitution.

ii. Gaps and Tensions: From Constitutional Promise to Political Reality

Despite constitutional guarantees, there are some grave areas of concern surrounding nation-building. For instance,

  • The Sixteenth Plan (2024/25–2028/29) continues the language of justice, prosperity, and inclusion, but acknowledges structural weaknesses in governance, economic equity, and service delivery.
  • The unfulfilled promises of transitional justice continue to alienate conflict victims. Without formal reconciliation, the wounds of the past hinder a shared future.
  • Despite impressive gains in literacy, infrastructure, and legal frameworks, the gap between constitutional vision and lived reality remains significant.
  • Economic Survey 2080/81 highlights both progress and persistent disparities in income, access, and human development.

Weaknesses in governance brought about by lawlessness, injustice, and corruption makes people lose hope. They feel abandoned by the government and set up their own ecosystem outside the constitution and laws for survival. The result could be a rise in outlaws or militants, risking increase instability and violent resistance in marginalized regions.

For nation-building to thrive, Nepal needs shared narratives that recognize Madhesi heroes, Janajati resistance, and Muslim contributions alongside more mainstream histories. Without such narrative parity, inclusion remains symbolic.

Similarly, education remains one of the most underutilized instruments in Nepal’s nation-building project. A curriculum that genuinely reflects Nepal’s ethnic, linguistic, and regional diversity—not just tokenistic mentions—can nurture empathy and unity among the next generation.

Conclusion

Nepal’s Constitution lays a bold foundation for a democratic, inclusive, and sovereign state that celebrates its multi-ethnic national character. However, the transition from textual commitment to substantive transformation demands deeper reforms, robust implementation, and sincere political will. The absence of political will not only hampers the implementation of constitution but also raises distrust among the people. True nation-building must go beyond symbolic inclusion to embrace structural change, social justice, and a reimagined civic unity that respects diversity.

Uprising in Nepal

Can Nepal Restore Monarchy?

By

On May 15, 2025

In Constitution Study, Nepal, Politics

Constitution Study #2: Reflections on Sovereignty, Monarchy, and Nepal’s Living Constitution

When I first set out to read the Constitution of Nepal in its entirety, I expected a legal document—dry, technical, full of jargon. What I encountered instead was a mirror, not just of law and governance, but of ourselves, our hopes, our betrayals, our fragilities. Somewhere along the journey, an unsettling question surfaced:

If the power of the State is vested in the Nepali people, and if they want to restore monarchy, would the Constitution still be valid? Can Nepal restore monarchy?

This question did not come in isolation. It arrived during a time of national anxiety. Pro-monarchist rallies were clashing with the government—voices rising from corners of frustration, nostalgia, and desperation. The very legitimacy of Nepal’s republicanism was being questioned on the streets.

Uprising in Nepal
A Protest in Nepal. Source: https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/nepal-can-democracy-recover-in-the-himalayan-nation

So, I asked. And I explored.

What the Constitution Says

Article 2 of the Constitution of Nepal lays out the provision for popular sovereignty:

“The sovereignty and State power of Nepal shall be vested in the Nepali people. It shall be exercised in accordance with the provisions set forth in this Constitution.”

This clause is both empowering and limiting. It declares that sovereignty lies with the people. But it must be exercised within the Constitution. This means constitutional sovereignty overrides popular sovereignty. And here lies the contradiction:

What happens when the people’s will itself wants to go beyond the current Constitution?

Can the Monarchy Be Reinstated?

Theoretically, yes. Practically, it’s a bit complicated. And yes, not without undoing the Constitution itself.

Nepal is currently a federal democratic republican state, as defined in Article 4(1). This identity is not decorative. It is woven into the Constitution’s foundation.

Reinstating the monarchy, may be possible through:

  • A two-thirds amendment in the Federal Parliament (Article 274),
  • A popular movement,
  • A referendum, or
  • A drafting of a new Constitution.

It’s not like we say, “We want the King back,” and poof! we get the King in an instant. It is a structural, existential shift. And it would legally nullify the current Constitution’s core.

What About the Constitution of 2047 (1990)?

The Constitution of 2047 (1990) was built upon constitutional monarchy. It was not perfect. It embodied a compromise between the king and the political parties after the Jana Andolan of 2046 (1990). Interestingly, even though the executive worked under the name of the king, it explicitly stated in Article 3:

“The sovereignty of Nepal is vested in the Nepalese people and shall be exercised in accordance with this constitution.”

Reinstating that Constitution would mean people still reigning supreme. However, the actions of king could not be challenged in court. He could declare an unfit heir, and people would have to accept him. He could choose anyone to head the Raj Parishad in his absence, undermining democratic representation. These provisions are both legally contradictory and philosophically paradoxical, which eventually resulted in extra-constitutional actions by the king, the political parties, and the reinstated parliament.

And yes, while the actions of the reinstated parliament bypassed formal legal channels, they were largely legitimized by the momentum of Jana Andolan II of (2063) 2006, a movement that many believed restored, rather than subverted, the people’s sovereignty.

But is it possible for Nepal to reinstate monarchy?

Maybe. The answer is in world history.

Cambodia’s Restoration: A Comparative LensIn exploring Nepal’s possible paths, I looked outward — to Cambodia.

  • In 1970, King Sihanouk was overthrown.
  • After a tragic chapter of genocide and communist rule, Cambodia returned to monarchy in 1993, not by reviving the old constitution, but by drafting a new one.
  • The new monarchy was symbolic, ceremonial, and constitutional. The real power remained with elected representatives.

Cambodia’s case shows us: Monarchy can return, but it must adapt to the times.

A Personal Reckoning

As I studied these questions of sovereignty, legitimacy, and revolution, the streets outside were turbulent. The clashes between monarchists and police, the chants for the crown, the counter-chants for the republic… they weren’t just noise.

They were echoes of something deeper: a broken trust.

The Constitution promises much: dignity, equality, justice. But the political system built atop it has failed too many, too often.
During those weeks, I saw not just a legal text, but a document under siege, not by mobs, but by neglect, by elite capture, by empty promises.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Theoretically, Nepal could become a monarchy again. But it would not be the same monarchy. Nor should it be.
Just as this republic must evolve or die, any future system must serve the people, not rule them.

As I often reminded myself:
A Constitution is not a crown. It is a contract.
It lives only if we believe in it, and act on it.

Final Thoughts

This journey left me emotionally raw, politically awakened, and intellectually humbled.

I don’t support monarchy. But I understand why some people now do. It is not because they all love the idea of kings. Maybe some do.
But it is mostly because they feel abandoned by the republic.

The Constitution of Nepal is still our greatest hope, but only if we make it real in the lives of the people it was meant to serve. Otherwise, it too will be remembered as yet another broken promise in the footnotes of history.

Page 1 of 3

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén