The Debate Over Executive Leadership in Nepal
Gen Z in Nepal is increasingly advocating for a shift in the country’s political structure, specifically calling for an executive head of government—commonly known as a prime minister—with term limits. This individual would be directly elected by the people rather than chosen by Parliament, as is currently the case under the existing Constitution. The idea of choosing an executive through direct public vote has long been a topic of discussion in Nepal, with strong arguments on both sides.
During the drafting of the current Constitution, there were heated debates over whether the executive should be selected by Parliament or directly by the citizens. The Maoists supported the concept of a directly elected executive, while the Nepali Congress favored an executive elected by Parliament. Later, the United Marxist Leninist (UML) shifted its stance to align with the latter. Ultimately, the decision was made to have the executive chosen by Parliament, and this system remains in place today.
The recent protests on September 8 highlighted a primary demand: the end of corruption. Proponents of a directly elected executive argue that such a system would bring stability, encourage long-term economic development, and reduce corruption. They believe that a government led by a directly elected leader would serve its full term without the instability associated with coalition governments. In contrast, executives chosen by Parliament often lead coalitions, which are seen as inherently unstable and less effective in driving economic progress.
Comparing Corruption Levels and Economic Performance
To evaluate these claims, it’s useful to look at global data. Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index (CPI) ranks countries based on perceived levels of public sector corruption. In 2024, Denmark topped the list with a score of 90, while Sudan scored the lowest at 8. Nepal ranked at 34, indicating moderate levels of corruption.
A comparison of 12 countries shows a clear difference between those with directly elected executives (Category I) and those with executives elected by Parliament (Category II). Category I includes France (67), the Philippines (33), Russia (22), Turkey (34), Sri Lanka (32), and the United States (67). Category II consists of Bangladesh (23), Canada (75), Denmark (90), Germany (75), India (38), and the United Kingdom (71). The CPI scores suggest that Category II countries generally have lower corruption levels.
Economic performance data from the World Bank also supports this trend. Countries in Category II tend to have stronger economic growth compared to those in Category I. However, stability alone does not guarantee reduced corruption or economic success. For example, some Category I countries like Russia and Turkey have experienced authoritarian tendencies, with leaders manipulating elections to maintain power.
Stability of Coalition Governments
There is a common belief that coalition governments are inherently unstable. However, this is not always the case. Many European countries, including Germany, operate under coalition governments and have achieved significant economic success. Germany, for instance, became an economic powerhouse under multiple coalition governments. These governments typically agree on a shared policy agenda before forming an alliance, ensuring stability and effective governance.
In India, Manmohan Singh’s coalition government lasted for 10 years, during which the economy saw remarkable growth. Similarly, in Canada, minority governments led by Steven Harper and Justin Trudeau managed to stay in power for nearly a decade. These examples demonstrate that coalition governments can be stable and economically successful if leaders act responsibly and prioritize public service over personal gain.
Challenges in Nepal’s Coalition Governments
Nepal’s coalition governments, however, often face instability due to a lack of accountability and clear agendas. Political leaders frequently clash over personal ambitions and the distribution of key government positions, leading to frequent collapses. Unlike in Europe, Nepal’s coalitions rarely have a publicly announced policy framework, making them vulnerable to internal conflicts.
Moving Forward: Reforms for a Stronger Democracy
The solution for Nepal lies not in adopting a directly elected executive, but in implementing meaningful reforms. A new generation of leaders must emerge, committed to transparency and public service. Key steps include:
- Enacting laws to reduce the cost of elections.
- Banning individuals with criminal records or those under investigation from contesting elections.
- Imposing strict limits on campaign spending.
- Making the government cover part of the election costs, similar to practices in Canada and European countries.
- Appointing an ethics czar in Parliament to oversee integrity.
- Removing the requirement for cabinet ministers to be members of Parliament, allowing the prime minister to appoint qualified individuals.
- Making internal democracy within political parties constitutionally mandatory.
Internal democracy in political parties is crucial for preventing abuses of power and ensuring responsible leadership. Had the UML practiced internal democracy, it might have curbed KP Sharma Oli’s excesses. Similarly, if the Nepali Congress had listened to dissenting voices, the Gen Z movement may not have been necessary.
By focusing on these reforms, Nepal can build a more transparent, accountable, and effective government that serves the best interests of its people.
