There is a debate about a directly elected president in Nepal. Like the directly elected presidential system (French and American), parliamentary systems (Scandinavian, German, British, and Indian) are also considered democratic.

In countries with internally democratic political parties, presidential systems and parliamentary systems operate relatively well.

Political parties act like ‘arteries’ and ‘veins’ for a democratic system. If we look at the political system biologically, ‘arteries and veins’ that do not function properly can lead to heart attacks, strokes, or organ damage. In this sense, is Nepali democracy having a heart attack, suffocating, or dead? There are various interpretations.

Political culture acts as oxygen for the operation of democracy, which can help in breathing. Without political culture, democracy is like a lifeless body. Ironically, Nepalis are stuck choosing between ‘football culture’ or ‘cricket culture’. What kind of change can a directly elected executive bring under the existing Nepali political culture? Or what can change the political culture? The thematic message of this article is that whether an elected presidential system or a parliamentary system cannot succeed without political culture.

Why and how does democracy die?

The international index of which countries have succeeded or failed in the presidential and parliamentary systems does not support Nepal's democratic needs. In both these types of systems, there is a clear separation of powers, checks and balances between the three branches of government (legislature, executive and judiciary) to prevent abuse of power.

Separation of powers, checks and balances could not be achieved in Nepal. For example, due to the alliance of the two major parties UML and Congress, the collective responsibility of the Council of Ministers could not be developed. Parliament was dysfunctional due to the dominance of party leaders. It can be seen that the Supreme Court decides on issues that should be handled by the legislature or executive, which has caused unnecessary political dangers. After the political turmoil in Nepal, it seems that the Supreme Court should exercise caution.

Models of the legislature, executive and judiciary can be imported or copied. But political culture and values ​​cannot be imported or copied. That is, where 'leu', 'chiau' and 'khiya' grow, rice, wheat and maize cannot be grown there. These metaphors may not be appropriate for describing political systems. But political systems need to be planted, not transplanted.

In today’s ‘lawless world’, even international indices of democracy have become suspect. The US and Western European democracies may be working internally on such indices. But their credibility has been shattered, especially in the wake of US invasions of various countries, Western European policies towards the US, and the massacre in Gaza.

Serious questions have been raised about the narratives of good governance, where is democracy and in whose words is democracy. Isn’t democracy like mold, mildew, and rust? ‘Democracy dies in the dark’ was the slogan adopted by The Washington Post in 2017. The philosopher Aldous Huxley long ago predicted that democracy would gradually disappear due to civil ‘apathy’. Anna-Karin Hatt, the leader of the ‘Center Party’ in Sweden, recently resigned due to growing hatred and threats. Her predecessor, Annie Low, also resigned for the same reason. The Center Party is not in the current government, and the right-wingers have widely hated and threatened her due to this party's anti-racist stance.

Efforts are being made to revive democracy in Nepal. There is a kind of public opinion that the parliamentary system should be reformed. There is another kind of public opinion that democracy can be revived through a directly elected president. Without a democratic culture, no one can revive democracy, be it a parliamentary prime minister or a directly elected president. For that, a rethinking or planting of Nepali culture is necessary.

Parliamentary Prime Minister and Executive President

Nepal's parliamentary system is plagued by instability and the country has been a victim of frequent changes of government. It is believed that since the presidential system has a fixed term (about five years), there is continuity in policy. Direct election of the president provides democratic legitimacy over a parliamentary prime minister. Since a parliamentary prime minister depends on the trust of the legislature and is based on collective responsibility, he cannot make quick decisions, so it is argued that the presidential system can be faster and more effective. The president can select a cabinet without legislative control. A cabinet that is accountable to the president can be effective.

Presidential systems also have disadvantages. There is a possibility of deadlock between the executive and the legislature, for example, before the start of the fiscal year, government spending cannot be carried out until the US Congress approves the budget presented by the president, this is called a ‘government shutdown’. It is difficult to remove ineffective presidents before the end of their term. There is a risk of centralization of power and the possibility of authoritarianism. Since accountability to the legislature is reduced, in practice there is weak control over the power of the president.

The US presidential election is controversial because of unequal representation, the failure of one person, one vote, and the neglect of voters. Voters in Wyoming have a greater influence than voters in large states, such as California. A candidate who has lost the popular vote five times in the past has won the presidency. This weakens the principle of one person, one vote. ‘Swing state bias’, i.e., the results can be predicted by ignoring voters in safe states. This type of electoral slavery was arranged to perpetuate, which is almost impossible to amend due to the rigid system of the US Constitution. Although the example of the current President Donald Trump is not promising, people hope for positive change in the next election due to the vigilance and flexibility of the American democratic culture and system.

Accountability to the legislature and high responsibility of the prime minister are positive features of the parliamentary system. An irresponsible prime minister can be removed through a vote of no confidence. Good coordination between the executive and the legislature becomes necessary. It encourages coalitions and compromises (but frequent government changes and instability are negative features of the parliamentary system). If the ruling party has an absolute majority, it turns into tyranny. Coalition politics can lead to policy paralysis. Executive dominance, weak parliamentary oversight, and declining trust in institutions are problems of democracy in India and the UK.

The failure of parliamentary democracy in Nepal is a textbook example

King Mahendra had developed reasons for the failure of parliamentary democracy such as party interests ignoring the national interest, unnecessary conflict between parties and lack of class coexistence, etc. Mahendra started the ‘non-party panchayat’ ‘suitable for the soil of the country’ in 1960, which proved to be a flop, a mushroom and a rust by the late 1980s.

Whether it is a parliamentary or presidential system (monarchy or republic), the success or failure of any system depends more on its political culture than on its institutional structure. Political culture refers to the shared values, beliefs, attitudes and norms that shape how citizens and leaders understand politics, rights and their civic responsibilities. It forms the moral and psychological basis on which political systems operate.

Political culture

While coalition governments between political parties should be the ideal solution, frequent party divisions have become Nepal’s political culture. Proportional representation is misused to appoint spouses and family relatives. Patronage and clientelism are deeply rooted in the political culture. Political loyalty is often promoted by corruption and incompetence rather than competence or impartiality. Many political leaders prioritize party or personal interests over the public good, ignoring governance, service, and the needs of citizens. A culture of impunity and corruption has developed – political leaders and elites are rarely held accountable for corruption, abuse of power, or failures in governance.

Democracy thrives where the political culture encourages citizen responsibility, participation, and accountability. Such a culture encourages leaders to respect constitutional boundaries and act with integrity. Where the political culture is imbued with patronage or opportunism, citizens lose faith in the system, leading to unrest, corruption, and authoritarian tendencies. Thus, the system itself collapsed in Nepal.

In a Sanskrit society, the luxury or display of power by those in power is considered uncivilized (remember the Nepokid controversy). Citizens feel a moral duty to participate in and support the democratic system. Citizens comply with tax laws and social norms because they see them as a fair contribution to the common good. Citizens demand public information, and governments actively disclose information online.

The egalitarian culture of the Nordic countries is different from that of the British and American political cultures. There is a cultural, historical, and political contrast between the Nordic and South Asian patriarchal traditions. Gender equality in Sweden is a pillar of national identity. Swedish men and women generally define themselves through personal achievements, careers, and personalities, not through marital or family identity.

Unlike in the United States, the Nordic countries do not give or take the role of ‘first lady’ or ‘first gentleman’, official duties, or ceremonial roles. In Sweden, there is no expectation that an American ‘first lady’ will lead charitable organizations or accompany the leader on diplomatic trips. For example, Birgitta Thorbjörnsson, the wife of former Prime Minister Olaf Palme, was a psychology teacher who stayed away from political life. In Nepal, Sher Bahadur Deuba's wife, Arju Rana Deuba, is a prominent political and NGO figure, having held the position of Foreign Minister (Mr. and Mrs. Deuba now understand that doing so was detrimental).

Former Swedish Prime Minister Magdalena Andersen's husband, Richard Friberg, is an economics professor but has never appeared in political discussions. The current Swedish Prime Minister, Ulf Kristersson, and his wife, Birgitta Ade, have been criticized by the Swedish media for trying to be like the American 'first lady'.

Corrupt political culture

Nepal has a conflict of interest, meaning that the prime minister has a personal, financial or political interest that improperly influences their official decisions. For example, the prime minister, his family or other leaders or activists in his party circle, have shares in a construction company, and the government awards that company a large public works contract. They can use their power to benefit their business. Brothers, relatives or friends of the head of government or cabinet minister run companies that receive government grants or contracts. They may favor family over fair competition.

Describing property damage after protesters burned down their houses, former Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli said in a video interview about receiving a priceless painting of his face as a gift: “A nobleman from Singapore paid a Vietnamese artist $8,000 to make a painting.” Did Oli publicly disclose the gift at the time of receiving it?

In countries with good morals, accepting such expensive personal gifts from foreigners can influence foreign policy decisions (Pakistan prohibits accepting gifts of more than $300). Is there a law in Nepal in this regard or does the law not apply to those in power? There were reports that businessman Min Bahadur Gurung had gifted land for the UML party office of the then Prime Minister Oli. This drew criticism from leaders of his own party. Oli took disciplinary action against the critics.

Conflicts of interest are not taken seriously in public debate in Nepal. Public information is not made available. The prime minister uses government resources to promote his political party. Decisions made while in power may be motivated by personal future gains. The prime minister secretly promotes foreign trade deals that benefit companies he co-owns. They are serving themselves rather than the public good.

In conclusion, ‘Political culture is what citizens believe about power, authority, and justice, and beliefs shape the life of a nation. One country may imitate the political structures of another, but without civic education, respect for the law, and a sense of the common good, those structures will not function effectively. Political systems are the organs of governance, but political culture is its soul. The real backbone of any nation is not its leadership but its citizens. It is the ordinary people—workers, farmers, teachers, doctors, drivers, and countless others—who truly keep the country alive and functioning. Governments come and go, leaders rise and fall, but the people remain the constant heartbeat of the nation.