The Legitimacy Crisis of Nepal’s Political Parties: A Theoretical Perspective from Jürgen Habermas

On March 14, sociologist Jürgen Habermas passed away at the age of 96. He was a leading figure in critical philosophy, contributing notably to sociology and Marxism. Critical philosophy is strongly linked with the Frankfurt School of Thought.

Though this article is not focused on the Frankfurt School itself, it would be inappropriate to omit Habermas’s contributions. The Frankfurt Institute for Social Research was established in 1923 by German Marxists. Its primary mission was to analyze the failures of the labor movements in Europe, the rise of Stalinism following the Russian Revolution, and the increasing spread of fascism, in order to uncover the weaknesses of Marxism.

The rise of fascism ultimately led to World War II, leaving Adolf Hitler’s name as a grim mark in world and German history. Born in 1929, Habermas was involved as a youth leader for Nazi Party youth groups for children aged 10 to 14 when other Frankfurt School members had fled the country to save their lives. He acknowledged this period as a dark chapter of his life.

After World War II, Habermas devoted the remainder of his life to reinterpreting Marxism from a new viewpoint. He authored over 50 books and hundreds of scholarly articles emphasizing the importance of preserving human liberation.

Professor Jonathan Turner wrote about Habermas, “His breadth of thought makes summarizing difficult.”

Habermas’s significant contributions span public sphere theory, social science reasoning, legitimacy issues in society, discourse and interaction analysis, media studies, and the colonialization of mentality.

Following his passing, these themes frequently emerged in my Master’s sociology classes. There are ongoing debates about how the notion of the public sphere within Marxist and democratic contexts can help sustain a democratic environment in Nepal.

However, a question still lingers for me and some peers: Why did the leaders and major political parties suffer such significant defeats in the recent elections? Why did the traditionally dominant parties lose so decisively? Habermas’s analysis in his book on the ‘Legitimacy Crisis’ offers insights into this.

The legitimacy crisis primarily refers to the loss of citizen trust and their perception of the inability of the social order to govern effectively in capitalist societies. Citizen trust is essential in any political system.

Habermas argues that this trust is twofold: the government guarantees citizens’ education, health, and legal rights, while citizens fulfill their obligations by abiding by laws, paying taxes, and participating publicly. This mutual contract sustains social order.

When the government fails in these responsibilities or disregards public expectations, the system faces a crisis. Failures in leadership, corruption, and constitutional violations undermine public trust.

In Nepal, for over 20 years, major parties have consistently failed to meet the public’s expectations, as documented frequently in the media. These events do not represent governmental deceit, but they have severely damaged public confidence in the system.

In this instability, protests, conflicts, and strikes have become prevalent, complicating citizens’ lives further. As resentment grows, even minor acts are employed by individuals to gain popularity, and calls for alternatives to the existing system intensify.

Habermas noted that democratic capitalist societies face higher risks of legitimacy crises compared to traditional societies. Whereas leadership in traditional societies was often based on supernatural authority, leadership legitimacy in capitalist democracies depends on reason, competence, and policy. Such legitimacy needs continuous validation through performance; otherwise, it is lost.

Economic inequality is another key driver of the legitimacy crisis. When a few accumulate excessive wealth while many struggle to meet basic needs, dissatisfaction with the system grows.

In Nepal, over 20% of the population lives below the poverty line. On September 8 (Bhadra 23), slogans such as ‘My father in the Gulf, your father in vehicles’ highlighted public disparities vividly.

Ideology forms another important element of the legitimacy crisis. When political leadership drifts away from its ideological foundations or exhibits inconsistencies in practice, citizens withdraw their acceptance.

Since 1950 (2007 BS), Nepali parties have emphasized equality, but for marginalized groups such as women, indigenous peoples, and Dalits, equality remains largely rhetorical and confined to paper rather than reality.

Technological development introduces further complexities, potentially exacerbating legitimacy crises by increasing unemployment risks, which leadership must address.

The media plays a vital role by exposing social problems and alerting leadership. Ignoring discontent, criticism, and protest leads to confusion and dissatisfaction in society, weakening the legitimacy of those in power.

Nepali media widely covers the public’s lack of trust in government operations. Parties claiming faith in democracy often address these voices only for political gain. Meanwhile, leaders frequently portray their weaknesses as jokes.

The legitimacy crisis initially reduces citizens’ trust in governance, lowering voter turnout. Its second phase brings increased law violations and disorderly conduct, such as traffic violations, fostering social instability.

This situation fuels protests, conflicts, and strikes, making daily life more difficult. People begin to seek alternatives to the existing system, even pursuing popularity through small actions. This essentially characterizes Nepal’s current political climate.

Nepali citizens have sought alternatives to the existing order by voting for the Rastriya Swatantra Party.

Within just seven months, previously influential political parties were simultaneously defeated by the citizens’ vote. All parties are searching for reasons behind their losses.

The short answer is that these parties abandoned efforts to solve citizens’ problems and separated themselves from the people. This is why the significant defeat occurred. It is not a single event but the culmination of thousands of failures.

Future governments and leaders of major parties must openly listen to and address citizen grievances, criticisms, and anger through dialogue. Ignoring discourse leads to loss of leadership legitimacy.

To prevent the legitimacy crisis, all forms of inequality must be reduced and transparency increased. Only then can democracy survive; otherwise, the system will be forced to seek alternatives. Habermas’s ideas offer valuable insight into understanding Nepal’s current political situation.