I am a Gorkhali.
„Even in courts, appoint Brahmins to examine Thakuris strictly, appoint Magars thoughtfully, and place a Pandit behind every desk to ensure that justice is administered according to the scriptures. No court money should enter the palace.”
– Nation-builder His Majesty King Prithvi Narayan Shah
In the mid-19th century, when a delegation of forty Nepali soldiers went to Tibet for negotiations, the Tibetans denied them food in the bitter cold, leading to the death of thirty-eight representatives. Similarly, a diplomatic mission from Nepal to Beijing in the 1850s endured serious mistreatment and even deaths in Tibet. This experience became the primary justification for Jung Bahadur Rana to launch the Nepal-Tibet War of 1855–56. Leading fourteen thousand troops, Jung Bahadur subdued Tibet in thirteen months and struck down two Chinese forts. For history enthusiasts, it is notable that at the request of Queen Victoria of Britain, Jung Bahadur crushed the Indian soldiers’ rebellion in forty-nine days.
Across the globe, leaders like the Malagasy generals removed directly elected executive presidents after five years; yet, in Nepal, the debate for a directly elected executive continues. The Constitution of Nepal enshrines federalism as a fundamental principle, recognizing proportional representation to ensure inclusivity and diversity. Today, however, a rising demand is for a directly elected Prime Minister. Proponents argue that only a direct mandate from the people can ensure stability, accountability, and a strong executive. They contend that it is the only way to end the repeated instability caused by fragile coalitions and the undue influence of small parties. Critics, however, warn that such a system could undermine the spirit of proportional representation that the Constitution guarantees for inclusivity and diversity.
Both perspectives contain elements of truth. A directly elected Prime Minister can be attractive to an informed electorate, provide stability, and offer long-term vision. Yet, in practice, weakening proportional representation risks undermining Nepal’s democratic soul. The real challenge, however, goes far beyond system design; it lies in governance and corruption, which have captured every level of power and every ministry. The bitter reality is that party dynasties, nepotism, and the sale of reserved positions have consolidated parliamentary control, allowing corruption to flourish. Security agencies’ merit systems are destabilized, judges hesitate to act under threat of impeachment, and the country teeters on the brink of collapse.
Federalism without accountability
Federalism was meant to bring governance closer to the people, ensure good governance, and control corruption. Instead, the outcome has been the exact opposite. Local governments-municipalities, rural municipalities, and provincial assemblies-have become extravagant, feudal-like courts. Mayors and deputy mayors enjoy vehicles, drivers, fuel, customs privileges, and myriad allowances. Ward chairs and provincial lawmakers consume state resources as if they were personal property.
Recent examples, such as provincial governments distributing cash to party workers as „Dashain allowances,” reveal the real face of federalism. Who investigates such actions? Who punishes the guilty? Accountability is absent. Federalism, introduced to bring governance closer to citizens, has instead become a factory producing corruption.
