Author: space4knews

The people want change, and perhaps the leaders want it too. But do the people’s desired form and style of change match those of the leaders? If this were the period from the election announcement day until February 21, we might have said yes.

Regardless of the pace at which parties and leaders progress, their promises were mostly in favor of those at the lowest levels of society. In this election, those who managed to convince the public became their leaders. The political power dynamic reversed; those on the streets took power, and those in power for three decades moved to the streets.

From a governance perspective, the change was just as significant, but the aim was not merely to replace one power with another. The main expectation was to bring politics back on track after it had gone astray.

Years of accumulated dissatisfaction, disgust over corruption, weak service delivery, and declining trust in political leadership pushed the public toward accepting new faces as an alternative. However, this acceptance was more a result of rejection than of trust.

Before the last election, voters were saying, ‘The old hasn’t delivered, so let’s look to the new.’ But they did not imply that what the old failed to do the new would definitely accomplish. The leaders who rose to power must work diligently to transform this skeptical expectation into genuine trust. Failure to grasp this psychology repeatedly puts democracy at risk, and the consequences are beginning to manifest.

This political change was not simply a sequence of events; the underlying causes were the public’s mindset, leadership style, and the deteriorated condition of democratic institutions. Therefore, the demand for change was strong, and that agenda won out.

Many signs indicate the emergence of new powers was chiefly due to deep-seated dissatisfaction with the old parties. In such scenarios, the mandate tends to be a ‘negative rejection’ rather than positive reaffirmation. This is where democracy’s true test begins because anger may open the door, but only institutional wisdom can build a home.

The rise of the Rastriya Swatantra Party and Prime Minister Balen Shah is riding this wave of anger. Although the public supports them as new alternatives, questions remain about how much of that support is grounded in policy debates and institutional trust. Time will provide clarity on this matter.

Questioning, critiquing, and demanding accountability are the cornerstones of democracy. If the people lose their critical perspective, they become the foundation for tyranny and subsequently its victims.

Currently, much of the support is driven by a desire to punish old powers. Politically, this is known as ‘negative consent,’ where votes are cast more to defeat someone than to advance someone. Such mandates may inject immediate energy but do not guarantee long-term stability.

French political thinker Alexis de Tocqueville provided a profound analysis of democracy’s strengths and limits in his seminal work Democracy in America (1835–1840), reflections that resonate with Nepal’s current political character.

Tocqueville particularly warned against ‘tyranny of the majority,’ cautioning that if majority power operates without institutional checks, legal balances, and critical public debate, it could undermine liberty.

According to him, democracy grants power to the majority, but without robust institutions, rules, and civic awareness to control it, that majority itself can become tyrannical, suppressing freedoms. When anger-born majorities place individuals above institutions, small and large warning signs of danger begin to appear.

Though many claim the rise of the Rastriya Swatantra Party and Prime Minister Balen Shah marks a ‘new era,’ in reality, their support stems more from public anger toward old parties than from firm institutional or policy foundations. The public chose alternatives, but their rejection of the old was stronger than their trust in the new. This too is a red flag for democracy.

The gravest threat in democracy arises when people prioritize immediate gratification over long-term freedom. The public embraced new leadership quickly because they sought rapid change, but that acceptance was not critically examined. This has created vulnerabilities for Prime Minister Balen Shah and the Rastriya Swatantra Party, explaining why today’s political support is unstable and may shift soon.

This support can be stabilized and made sustainable—but only by first winning the people’s trust and restoring their affection, which has long been overshadowed by traditional state structures.

Governance depends on personalities, the people’s trust, and legal and institutional legitimacy. Nepal’s new leadership is currently personality-based, drawing public support for individual courage, rhetoric, and style. However, political science research shows that legitimacy based on personality does not endure unless it transforms into institutional legitimacy. Strengthening institutions—rather than individuals alone—is vital for democratic stability. Power lasts only when citizens freely accept it. When power is confined to an individual’s control, it turns into repression or violence, offering no political solutions, a phenomenon well-documented in Nepal’s political history.

Consider the example of KP Sharma Oli’s tenure following the 2017 election when he held an outright majority. Initially, public favored every move he made; his words and actions gained popularity and support.

Gradually, however, he began sidelining parliament, governing by ordinance, and pushing personal control over institutional processes. At first, public support strengthened this tendency, but eventually, that support reversed into opposition. The vote counts in the latest elections mirror this shift clearly. Political analysts refer to this as ‘majority tyranny’—where excess majority power weakens democratic foundations.

Another pressing question arises: will we repeatedly cycle through this pattern? Anger at old parties, hope in new leadership, followed by disappointment and a search for yet another alternative?

Prime Minister Balen Shah’s style within just one month of office similarly signals this cycle. His popularity, decisive leadership, and anti-corruption image have attracted public attention. Yet recent actions raise questions. His deprioritization of parliament and limited consultation on sensitive subjects create ambiguity as to whether he views himself as ‘superior’ or if his approach is simply ill-suited.

Specifically, the unilateral stance on complex social issues such as the squatters’ problem has challenged democratic processes. Legal strictness alone was insufficient; compassion, social justice, and participatory decision-making were essential. Ignoring these fundamental aspects elevates this issue beyond mere administrative governance, as it diminishes democratic values.

The path to despotism begins with small signs. When people stop questioning their leaders, reject criticism, shortcut legal processes, and perceive institutions as obstacles—this is where the seeds of tyranny are sown. Freedom remains protected only as long as citizens remain vigilant. If people develop the attitude that ‘whatever the leader does is right,’ democracy faces its greatest peril. History has shown that tyranny invariably begins with popular support and initially harms the very people who endorse it. A thousand-mile journey toward despotism starts with a single step.

On the other hand, democracy possesses the ability for self-correction. The reason despotism has not endured long in Nepal is the strong political consciousness of its people. The public has experienced the end of monarchy, the establishment of a republic, and numerous movements since.

Media, social networks, and public debate swiftly scrutinize any decision, thereby reinforcing legal-institutional frameworks. When these structures are strong, personality-centered power is curtailed. Although Nepal’s institutions have weakened, they have not vanished. Thus, any tyrannical tendencies ultimately face resistance.

However, another critical question remains: will we keep repeating this cycle? Anger toward old parties, hope in new leadership, subsequent disappointment, and then the quest for alternatives. If politics continues to repeat this loop, democracy will never mature.

Democracy is not merely a process for changing governments, but a process for cultivating a political culture. Without prioritizing institutions over personality worship, any new leadership will fall into the old problems. Freedom is safeguarded by institutions, not individuals.

At present, both leaders and citizens must accept responsibility. Leaders should view popularity not as a personal right but as a public duty. Attempts to weaken institutions will ultimately lead to their own downfall. Likewise, the public must prevent their support from turning into blind allegiance.

The culture of questioning, critique, and demanding accountability is democracy’s foundation. If the people lose their critical outlook, they become the very basis of tyranny and suffer its consequences.

Currently, we face two paths: one that leads to personality-centered rule or one that strengthens institutional democracy. If the new leadership prioritizes institutional processes, transparency, and participatory decision-making, it could mark a historic achievement. However, if governance continues to rely on personal decisions, short-term popularity, and temporary support, it will take a dangerous turn for democracy, as the greatest safeguard lies in civic awareness. Preserving this awareness will secure the nation’s democratic journey.