By Narayan Prasad Mishra

At its core, democracy is a system of governance that relies on collective will, shared responsibilities, and ethical leadership. It demands participation, accountability, transparency, and a commitment to the greater good. However, when the culture underpinning democracy is deeply self-centered—marked by nepotism, favoritism, corruption, and personal gain—the very foundation of democratic governance begins to erode. Our political history from 1951 to the present day—a period nearly parallel to India’s democratic history—offers a revealing case study. When we seriously study and analyze it, we see that we have had a long history of democratic systems from 1951 to date. Still, we have always had democracy without a democratic culture. 

Regardless of which government or party is in power—democratic or communist—once they assume office, they tend to work only for themselves and their close circles, forgetting the core values of democracy: equality, justice, and public welfare over personal gain. They have well established the wrong fact that in our context, democracy means democratic rights are only available for the leaders and followers of the political parties in power, not for the country and people. According to Mwanandeke Kindembo, the Congolese author of self-help books - 

On the other hand, a large number of people in the country are self-centered followers of the major parties—the Nepali Congress, the Nepal Communist Party (UML), and the Nepal Communist Party (Maoist). They seem to support the system primarily in the hope of gaining personal benefit, showing sycophancy (in Nepali, it is called chakadi) at the expense of truth and conscience. They do not raise their voices against the flawed democratic culture that hinders the development and welfare of the nation. With rare exceptions, the leaders and followers of all parties in power have demonstrated this in practice. It is surprising and mysterious to me that the political parties, their leaders, and followers who came to power through movements and revolutions by promising people development and welfare have turned into unimaginable frauds and great cheaters. I am bound to understand the English Proberb from it - Don’t judge a book by its cover. 

The majority of people who are not connected with political parties and are the primary sufferers remain helpless and unable to revolt against it. In reality, in our country, the government means the government for the party and the party people who are in power, not for the people. The general public is like orphans in our country, which I feel every moment of my life. No one gives any attention to your problems if you have no party connection. 

In this series, I have written over 200 articles voluntarily and continuously for the last 5 years, expressing my grievances regarding the problems of the people and the development of the country—related to food, health, water, electricity, education, cooperatives, economic development, infrastructure development, corruption, bad governance, nepotism, favoritism, self-centered politics, etc. Now, I feel all went in vain, and there is no use in putting your brain, time, and labor for this cause in our country. 

In this context, we can cite the burning example of more than 7.3 million cooperative victims who have been protesting in the streets to get their deposited hard-earned money back, with unbearable tears and agonies, from super-rich cooperative operators and cheaters like Ichha Raj Tamang, the ex-Nepal Communist Party (UML) parliamentarian—cheated by all the rich fraudsters connected with political parties for the last several years. No one has given due attention to it. The government has no eyes to see their tears. No one has come forward with urgent solutions to solve this problem and give justice to the sufferers without delay—which must be done on a war footing, even by making new laws, if necessary.

This proves that we have no government for the people. The present political system has made the country unlivable, and the people have nowhere to go.

Thus, our democracy remains caught between its noble ideals and the self-serving behavior of those in power. Political parties—be they Congress, Communists, Socialists, or others—carry these labels in name only. Those of us who speak this truth with a free conscience are often branded as anti-democratic or enemies of the system. In fact, it is these critics who are democracy’s true friends. Meanwhile, the leaders and their loyal followers grow richer with each passing year while a growing number of citizens sink deeper into poverty. The nation's overall condition continues to deteriorate, with nearly one-third of our people forced to seek work abroad. This is the real, painful, and disturbing portrait of our democratic journey. So, we see democracy on paper but power in the pockets of those in government. The slogan is democracy; the service is to self. The people watch in silence as leaders feed their own—family, friends, and loyal followers—while the nation is left waiting. In this context, I am forced to remember a proverb I once made -

The Promise of 1951 and the Democratic Interlude (1951–1960)

Our country’s democratic journey began with hope in 1951, following the overthrow of the autocratic Rana regime. This marked the beginning of a political awakening and the possibility of popular participation in governance. However, even in these early years, personal ambitions often overshadowed national interest. The short-lived democratic experiment from 1959 to 1960, led by Prime Minister B.P. Koirala under King Mahendra’s constitutional monarchy, was a promising step. However, internal power struggles, ideological conflicts, and the inability of political actors to prioritize the nation over their egos weakened the system. The King dismissed the government in 1960, justifying his actions by pointing to political instability and inefficiency.

The Panchayat Period (1961–1990): Stability Without Democracy

The Panchayat system, introduced by King Mahendra in 1961, sidelined political parties and concentrated power within the monarchy. While it provided a degree of political stability and development, it was essentially a one-party system that suppressed dissent and discouraged pluralism. The system entrenched a culture of obedience, patronage, and bureaucratic corruption. The lack of transparency and accountability further deepened the culture of self-serving governance. Civil servants and political appointees operated within a system where personal loyalty to the monarchy was rewarded more than competence or integrity, though not worse, like in the later years.

Multiparty Democracy and Unfulfilled Expectations (1991–2006)

The 1990 People’s Movement restored multiparty democracy under a constitutional monarchy. Expectations were high. However, instead of building institutions and fostering democratic norms, political leaders quickly fell into old patterns—party loyalty trumped national interest, and public offices became tools for personal enrichment. Nepotism and favoritism flourished. Corruption became systemic, and democratic institutions were weakened by constant political infighting and frequent changes in government. The decade-long Maoist insurgency (1996–2006) emerged as a response to widespread frustration with this corrupt and ineffective political system, revealing just how deep the disillusionment with democracy had become.

The Federal Republic of Nepal (2006–Present): A Democracy in Name?

The 2006 People’s Movement brought an end to the monarchy and initiated the transition to a federal democratic republic. Nepal adopted a new constitution in 2015, and the hope was that a new beginning would deliver genuine democracy. However, while the structure of democracy—elections, parliaments, courts, and press freedom—exists on paper, the culture remains unchanged. Power is often used not to serve the people but to secure personal or party gain. Political leaders frequently switch parties for opportunistic reasons, governments rise and fall not on principle but on coalition arithmetic, and state resources are distributed based on personal connections rather than need or merit. Partisan interests capture institutions, and the public remains disillusioned mainly.

Can There Be Real Democracy in a Self-Centered Culture?

Real democracy requires more than periodic elections or constitutional provisions—it demands a political culture that values integrity, responsibility, and service to the people. In our country, the dominant political culture still reflects a legacy of patronage, personal gain, and moral compromise. Until this culture changes, democracy will remain largely symbolic—a hollow shell without substance.

What Must Be Done?

To achieve real democracy in Nepal, several changes—both structural and cultural—are necessary:

1. Civic Education and Democratic Values - Citizens must be educated not only about their rights but also about their responsibilities in a democracy. Schools, media, and civil society must promote democratic values such as honesty, accountability, tolerance, and respect for the rule of law.

2. Ethical Political Leadership - Nepal needs a new generation of political leaders who prioritize public service over personal gain. Political parties must democratize internally and hold their members accountable.

3. Independent Institutions - Strengthening the independence of the judiciary, anti-corruption agencies, and oversight bodies is critical. These institutions must be allowed to function without political interference.

4. Rule of Law and Enforcement - Laws against corruption, nepotism, and abuse of power must be strictly enforced, regardless of the accused's status or influence.

5. Public Pressure and Participation - Citizens must demand better governance, protest wrongdoing, and vote based on merit rather than loyalty, ethnicity, or party affiliation.

6. Meritocracy in Government and Public Service - Recruitment and promotion in public institutions should be based on merit and performance, not connections.

Our political history is rich with struggle, sacrifice, and moments of promise. Yet democracy has repeatedly failed to take root because of a culture that prioritizes personal interest over public good. To transform our democracy from form to substance, from name to reality, both leaders and citizens must embrace a new political ethic—one that is selfless, accountable, and rooted in service. Only then can democracy truly work for the people and the country. I am sure, until then, we will have a democracy in name but not in practice. I think I might not see real democracy in my motherland in my lifetime.

narayanshanti70@gmail.com