Nepal’s politics marked by fragility and corruption

Nepal’s political condition can be interpreted through various lenses—some emphasize fragility, others resilience—but the persistent characterization of the country as inherently ‘ungovernable’ demands closer scrutiny.

Despite overwhelming evidence of a corrupt, male-dominated political class, mainstream discourse continues to reinforce outdated gender norms.

Women remain marginalized—not only absent from ideological and policy platforms but effectively excluded from a political sphere dictated by elite rhetoric, entrenched class hierarchies, and deep economic disparity.

A crucial question today is how to assess the consequences of Nepal’s federal democratic republic, established in 2008. With the exception of Sushil Koirala, successive governments have been led by schizophrenic incompetents—Khadga Prasad Oli, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, Sher Bahadur Deuba, Madhav Nepal, and Baburam Bhattarai—who now stand as living embodiments of Nepal’s democratic dysfunction.

Their governance has been nothing more than a theatrical spectacle—one riddled with incoherence, corruption, and a disturbing disregard for public accountability.

My interpretation following the inauguration of the republic is that the political system change has introduced significant uncertainties.

Without the emergence of a new balance of power between the state and society—one that genuinely reflects and responds to the preferences of the majority—any superficial reform or rhetorical promise offers little hope of reversing Nepal’s democratic backsliding. In reality, the fundamental essence of democracy in Nepal remains elusive and largely unfulfilled.

These changes have contributed to precarious employment conditions and increased moral panic and public outrage, which have frequently triggered mass protests.

Even the very future of Nepal as a political entity is now in question. In response, political elites often resort to tough rhetoric with little to no concrete action. Instead of addressing core concerns, they tend to enact systematically more illiberal policies under the banner of democratic governance.

However, democracy—conceived in its modern form as a mechanism meant to provide structure and stability to citizens’ political beliefs—functions within broader sociopolitical structures, which in Nepal remain fragile and under strain.

While political scientists often distinguish between limited and transformative political change brought about by social movements, we argue that—with the exception of the 1951 anti-Rana uprising—most political movements in Nepal have been driven by impulse rather than genuine democratic intent.

The political landscape has been dominated by a self-serving, gerontocratic leadership, many of whom are entangled in criminal activities and display a glaring absence of foundational political values.

These leaders have managed to hijack democratic processes, effectively imprisoning democratic ideals and monopolizing public discourse. This dominance persists despite recurring public debates emphasizing the urgent need for youth to take active roles in shaping democratic opinion and engaging in the public sphere.

In our view, Nepal has evolved into an electoral autocracy—where elections occur, but democratic principles are hollowed out.

This system severely limits the extent to which youth actors can meaningfully participate in public discourse, particularly within the three major political parties: the UML, the Nepali Congress, and the Maoists.

At present, the country is under the leadership of Khadga Prasad Oli—Nepal’s pathological embodiment of shameless idiocy from the UML party, whose political style aligns disturbingly well with Shashi Tharoor’s descriptors: mumpsimus, recreant, and clishmaclaver. Alongside him is Arzoo Deuba, the Foreign Minister from the Nepali Congress, facing accusations of human trafficking.

Together, they form a uniquely toxic alliance, not only disregarding Nepal’s hard-earned democratic rights but actively undermining them in pursuit of blatantly antidemocratic, self-serving agendas.

Under their tenure, corruption has reached astronomical heights, bureaucratic dysfunction has become standard practice, and the rule of law has all but collapsed.

What remains is an entrenched culture of impunity, where elite interests consistently supersede the public good and democratic institutions are either too fragile or too compromised to mount any meaningful resistance. In this bleak reality, the concept of democratic deepening is nothing more than a hollow slogan—a mocking distortion of the ideals upon which a modern, inclusive, and just Nepal was supposed to be built.

Studies suggest that charismatic leadership is often seen as a key driver of electoral success for populist parties.

However, from a state-building perspective, governance requires a distinct approach. In the post-monarchy era of Nepal’s political evolution, power has remained concentrated in the hands of a few.

The rise of privileged political elites has fostered a system more devoted to coercion and clientelism than to genuine democratic participation. When political leaders are perceived as corrupt, elections fail to serve their fundamental purpose—differentiating between competent and incompetent political actors.

Nepal, burdened by severe income inequality and a dysfunctional governance structure, has witnessed growing public demand for state-led redistribution.

Yet, political mistrust runs deep, as collusion among elites continues to reinforce the existing political framework—a phenomenon I call ‘Nepali political theatre.’

This enduring cycle of power consolidation, public disenchantment, and strategic manipulation not only stifles democratic progress but also ensures that governance remains a spectacle rather than a true mechanism of societal transformation.

Although the question of whether non-violent political movements lead to more favorable outcomes remains an area that requires further empirical investigation, populist discourse and ideological extremism have consistently shown a tendency to fuel hostility across various contexts.

A republic, in its ideal form, is a system of governance where power is vested in elected representatives who are entrusted with serving the interests of the people.

However, Nepal’s current political structure deviates from this principle—what can be termed a perverted republic, where governance is dominated by a select few. This form of rule, often classified as oligarchy or tyranny, prioritizes personal and group interests over the broader welfare of the nation.

While Nepal does not exemplify mobocracy, which signifies chaotic rule by the masses, it also fails to establish a substantive democratic framework.

First, decision-making authority is increasingly shaped by actors operating at different territorial scales. Second, these actors and arenas do not follow a strict hierarchical order, as seen in traditional intergovernmental systems.

A true democracy fosters a shared cultural identity, ensuring that government mechanisms genuinely listen to and reflect the attitudes of the people.

Over the past few decades, Nepali citizens have grown increasingly uncertain about how to assess the state of their democracy.

Without the emergence of a new balance of power between the state and society—one that genuinely reflects and responds to the preferences of the majority—any superficial reform or rhetorical promise offers little hope of reversing Nepal’s democratic backsliding. In reality, the fundamental essence of democracy in Nepal remains elusive and largely unfulfilled.

Although Prime Minister Khadga Prasad’s directive to his party cadres to capture Kathmandu by any means necessary’ on the eve of Republic Day can be seen as incitement to violence—arguably bordering on terrorist behavior or signaling a turn toward violent extremism—this represents only one facet of a broader and deeply troubling political pattern.

Moreover, the formation of coalition governments in Nepal increasingly appears to be driven by the pursuit of state capture, the misuse of public resources, and involvement in illicit activities such as human trafficking and entrenched corruption—where political competition is based more on clientelism than on clear policy programs.

These coalitions often show a growing disregard for democratic norms and procedures, displaying authoritarian tendencies, elitist posturing, and an emphasis on the supremacy of individual leaders over institutional accountability.

As a result, public trust in democratic institutions has sharply declined. If this trend continues, it may trigger a deeper structural crisis in democratic legitimacy itself.

Globally, recent popular uprisings have expanded our understanding of political participation—moving beyond the formal, institutionalized forms typical of liberal democracies. For three key reasons, Robert Kaiser (Paradiplomacy and Multi-level Governance in Europe and North America, Participation, 27/1, 17-19, 2003) has further elaborated on the concept of multi-level governance by identifying its distinct features.

While the Khadga Prasad-led government managed to survive the pro-monarchy mobilizations of May 29—a date symbolically associated with the fall of the monarchy—mere survival is not enough. In a republic, it is performance and legitimacy that truly matter.

First, decision-making authority is increasingly shaped by actors operating at different territorial scales. Second, these actors and arenas do not follow a strict hierarchical order, as seen in traditional intergovernmental systems.

Third, decision-making often relies on consensual or non-majoritarian processes. For Nepal to preserve its republican democracy and effect meaningful transformation in its political and economic structures, these dynamics must be fully anticipated and addressed.

In seeking to understand how Nepal’s ongoing political transformation has unfolded, we find the country grappling with widespread civic disengagement, institutional fragility, and eroding political legitimacy.

When examining Nepal’s political and economic landscape, it becomes clear that there has been a persistent lack of meaningful engagement between ordinary citizens and political leaders—an essential ingredient for the consolidation of democratic institutions.

This disconnect is fueling Nepal’s drift toward a new phase of national movement, one increasingly defined by demands for national sovereignty, cultural identity, and economic protectionism.

These sentiments mirror global trends witnessed in Trump’s America, Modi’s India, Brexit-era Britain, and the rise of Marine Le Pen in France—whether or not Nepal’s version of this movement ultimately calls for the return of the monarchy.

This transition is occurring at a time when Nepal faces severe developmental challenges: the absence of robust socio-economic institutions, growing cultural disintegration, social instability, and the persistent marginalization and exclusion of large segments of the population.

Allegations of illegal land seizures, abuse of power, and financial misconduct have fueled demands for his resignation, seen by many as the only means to uphold electoral accountability in the face of his alleged malfeasance.

Amid these crises, one of the darkest dimensions of the current political order is the involvement of ruling elites in human trafficking. This grotesque abuse of power not only highlights the moral decay at the heart of the state but also undermines any genuine efforts to address broader systemic issues.

While the Khadga Prasad-led government managed to survive the pro-monarchy mobilizations of May 29—a date symbolically associated with the fall of the monarchy—mere survival is not enough. In a republic, it is performance and legitimacy that truly matter.

These are the foundations upon which the aspirations of deliberative democracy rest—a democracy that is expected to address the pressing questions of inclusion, sustained civic engagement, and long-term democratic transformation.

Yet today, the focus of political discourse has shifted dramatically. The most pressing controversy surrounds Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak, whose ministry is allegedly entangled in human trafficking operations.

Reports suggest that officials under his watch have been accepting bribes from Nepali citizens seeking employment abroad, exploiting them through the misuse of visit visas.

What is indisputable is that democracy, on its own, does not automatically guarantee high-quality governance. As Nobel laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz has argued, inequality remains one of the defining political challenges of the 21st century—rooted not merely in economics but in the very structures of political power.

Meanwhile, existing literature conceptualizes state capacity as a blend of available resources and the quality of institutions. These factors are frequently discussed in relation to the broader framework of good governance.

Over the past four decades, Nepal’s political landscape has been shaped by a revolving door of heads of government and career politicians, many of whom have been deeply polarizing.

Among them, Khadga Prasad Oli stands out as a particularly contentious figure—often accused of megalomania and an excessive penchant for rhetoric devoid of meaningful policy action.

Rather than initiating proactive programs conducive to civil peace, he has frequently leveraged his political influence to achieve partisan objectives, with misinformation serving as a powerful tool in his arsenal.

As Nepal navigates these complexities, it is crucial to explore potential solutions that could address the structural challenges within its political system and pave the way for more transparent and accountable governance.

His tenure has been marred by accusations of institutionalized corruption, with a litany of scandals forming an empirical case against him. Among these, the Giribandhu Tea Estate scandal—widely regarded as the largest land scam in Nepal’s history—remains one of the most notorious.

Allegations of illegal land seizures, abuse of power, and financial misconduct have fueled demands for his resignation, seen by many as the only means to uphold electoral accountability in the face of his alleged malfeasance.

These revelations raise urgent and fundamental questions about the integrity of Nepal’s leadership and the trajectory of its democratic governance.

The federal democratic republic, once heralded as a promise of decentralization and accountability, increasingly appears to be a mere façade for elite bargains and political inertia.

Given the gravity of these accusations, uncertainty looms over whether Prime Minister Oli possesses the political will—or moral authority—to dismiss Lekhak. After all, his own administration is shrouded in suspicion, as he continues to embrace populist rhetoric despite mounting evidence that it fails to align with tangible governance outcomes.

In many established democracies, mainstream political parties have faced disruption—either from the rise of new populist movements or through hostile takeovers.

However, Nepal presents a distinct case of partocracy, where the relentless pursuit of partisan interests manifests in various forms, shaping governance in ways that often hinder democratic principles.

This has led to major dilemmas in the decision-making process and leadership structures, raising urgent concerns about political integrity and institutional effectiveness.

As Nepal navigates these complexities, it is crucial to explore potential solutions that could address the structural challenges within its political system and pave the way for more transparent and accountable governance.