Nepal has seen governments form and fall repeatedly. Even a government lasting three years has become a rare achievement. In such a situation, there are those who advocate for a directly elected executive in the quest for stability and sustainable policy continuity. However, there are also doubts about whether there will be excessive centralization of power in the name of achieving stability.

The very essence of democracy is the balance of power, accountability, and multi-stakeholder participation. Will the system of directly elected executives strengthen or weaken such parties?

Political instability, complications within coalitions, and lack of continuity of leadership have been found to be challenges in the governance systems of many countries. In such a situation, can a directly elected executive be a suitable option for the country? Or, will its potential negative impact lead democracy to a crisis? The effectiveness of a directly elected executive should be evaluated between these two questions.

Possible need

Since the people choose the directly elected executive, that is, the leadership, through their own votes, the legitimacy, moral basis, and public trust of the leadership are extremely strong. In this system, the executive is not affected by unexpected changes in the parliament or party divisions, which can greatly contribute to political stability and continuity of governance.

When the mandate is strong, decision-making capacity is enhanced, policy obstacles are reduced, and the executive can provide quick, clear, and effective leadership, especially in sensitive areas such as development, infrastructure, national security, and crisis management. A directly elected executive can make state administration strong, quick, and goal-oriented. This model is also considered more clear from the perspective of public accountability.

Since the executive power in a parliamentary system is born from the parliament, factional struggles within political parties, uncertainty of coalitions, and power-hungry tendencies can shorten the life of the government's agenda. It is not unusual for five prime ministers to change in a five-year term. Such instability neither allows for long-term policy formulation, nor does it provide institutional continuity to the decisions implemented.

In such a situation, the main argument raised by the group advocating for a directly elected executive is this: an executive that has received direct legitimacy from the people is more likely to be stable, competent, and policy-oriented. The country can be freed from the situation where the arithmetic game of parliament destabilizes the executive. It is found that countries where a directly elected executive has been practiced have contributed to long-term planning, stable leadership, and clean implementation.

Potential risks

A directly elected executive also carries the risk of exercising uncontrolled authority and weakening institutional balance. By interpreting itself as the 'supreme mandate of public opinion,' the executive is more likely to overshadow other constitutional balancing bodies. Another challenging aspect of a directly elected executive is the potential for political conflict.

If the chief executive elected through direct elections is on one side and the majority of parliamentarians is on the other, the running of the state can turn into a tug-of-war between two competing powers-the-center. Policies can get stuck, budgets can be blocked, and the administrative structure itself can become conflict-ridden. Such a situation can turn into an irony that the system adopted in the pursuit of stability can actually create instability.

Similarly, the election of a direct executive is highly individualistic and polarized. Caste, region, identity, emotional issues, populism, etc. flare up rapidly, which can negatively impact social harmony. Cultural diversity can be disrupted and the entire state can be thrown into conflict.

A discussion of suitability for Nepal

Nepal has recently undergone a constitutional transformation and is building a new structure. The country is still in the transition phase in its journey to institutional stability, legal clarity, and building a political culture. In this situation, the argument that the selection of a directly elected executive can provide long-term stability is attractive, but in reality, it also has a strong possibility of disrupting the balance of power, weakening federalism, and creating unwanted tension in the democratic apparatus and structure. 

Despite this, it would be prejudice to completely reject the directly elected executive system. Nepal has problems such as rapidly changing governments, policy inaction, indiscipline within parties, political instability, and obstacles to long-term development projects, which have played a role in questioning the current system. But is the solution to them a directly elected executive? Or does seeking such a solution lead to even greater complications?

How effective are the mechanisms of checks and balances in our country? How unwavering is the independence of the judiciary? How fearless and non-partisan are the constitutional bodies? How fearless and capable is the parliament? How agile is civil society and the press? Moving towards a direct executive without strengthening these foundations is like trying to build a castle on a weak foundation.

The debate on directly elected executives is fundamentally linked to the serious question of how to shape the character of democracy rather than changing the system. There are concerns about stable government, long-term policy continuity, and firm implementation. However, no governance system can be a ‘magic solution’ in itself. Its effectiveness depends on a strong institutional structure, an independent judiciary, an accountable parliament, and an aware citizenry.

In a diverse and federal democracy like Nepal, a directly elected executive can be both an opportunity and a risk. If the foundations of balance are strong, this system can open new doors to stability and transparency. However, if those foundations are weak, power centralization and individualism can damage the very backbone of democracy.