The institutional failure of the existing governance system in Nepal's political landscape and the resulting deep civic disillusionment are the root causes of the recent Gen-G movement. This movement is a powerful protest against dynasticism, government inaction, growing inequality in the state system, deep distrust of political leadership, and the monopoly of most state opportunities by a limited number of individuals and families.

To address these structural and institutional problems, the younger generation has demanded a review of the structure and process of state governance. At the center of this debate, the proposal of a directly elected chief executive (President) has emerged as a strong major alternative. This article analyzes the fundamental characteristics, potential, and limitations of the parliamentary and presidential systems and rationally discusses the relevance of both systems in the socio-political context of Nepal.

The Constitution of Nepal has adopted a modified British-style parliamentary system. In this system, the Prime Minister remains the chief executive, while the President plays the role of the formal head of state. In addition, the members of the cabinet are elected by the legislature and are accountable to the legislature. The tenure of the executive depends on the confidence of the legislature. The leadership of the cabinet can be changed through a motion of no confidence, which makes a change of power possible in a crisis situation without new elections.

In principle, the close relationship between the executive and the legislature in parliamentary governance creates relative ease in policy formulation and implementation. Direct accountability is expected to increase the credibility of governance. In addition, since the cabinet in a parliamentary system is often based on coalitions, it encourages inclusive representation of religious, ethnic, and regional diversity. A comparative study by renowned political scientist Arend Lisztfart has shown that countries that adopt inclusive (consociational) democratic systems tend to have greater stability, political peace, and democratic sustainability than countries that adopt majority systems. 

However, practical experience in Nepal confirms that the parliamentary system, instead of providing political stability, has been a victim of unstable relations between the executive and the legislature. Structural problems such as institutional weakness, traditional protectionist culture, and party vested interests are continuously eroding its effectiveness.

Frequent reorganization of the ruling coalition, dissolution of parliament, and frequent changes of power have increased disenchantment and distrust of the parliamentary system among the general public. As a direct result, it has become difficult to achieve the fundamental goals of federalism and decentralization. Due to such political distortions, the general public's trust in the parliamentary system is weakening. 

As a fundamental solution to these long-standing institutional and structural problems, the younger generation has started advocating strongly in favor of a directly elected executive (presidential) system of governance. The main argument of the proponents of this system is that the president, who receives a direct mandate, remains institutionally independent from the legislature. As a result, the president's tenure is guaranteed, direct mandate is expected to provide political and administrative stability, and the leadership is expected to be relatively strong, accountable, and result-oriented.

However, comparative political studies have warned that excessive centralization of power can create various risks in a society with a diverse and underdeveloped political culture like ours.

Crisis of dual legitimacy: This system carries the risk of a crisis of dual legitimacy and intransigence. When both the president and the legislature are directly elected by the people, both claim equal democratic legitimacy. Since it is inherently difficult to clearly delimit the boundaries of power, an environment of conflict and distrust is created between the president and the legislature, which becomes the root cause of systemic conflict. 

Lack of flexibility: According to the famous politician Juan Linz, the fixed term of the president in a presidential-prime minister system can create an illusion of political stability and hinder real flexibility. This problem can be exacerbated by the fact that it is difficult to remove the president before the stipulated time, especially in a crisis situation, if he fails or loses public support.

Challenges in inclusiveness: According to the analysis of the famous political scientist Lizfart, it is absolutely necessary to promote the values ​​of consensus politics, participatory decision-making and power sharing in a new federal, pluralistic and multi-ethnic state like Nepal. Only in this way can unity, trust and goodwill be preserved among the different classes, geographical areas and social communities of the state. However, the model of a directly elected president seems fundamentally contradictory to these imperatives.

Presidents with direct mandates are often driven by their sense of supreme legitimacy and may be reluctant to engage in consensus and compromise politics. This has the potential to deepen the structural inequalities and feelings of exclusion that exist in pluralistic societies. Majoritarian decision-making under this system increases the risk of ignoring the voices of minorities and marginalized groups, which can sow the seeds of serious discontent and social conflict in Nepal's ethnically, culturally, and regionally diverse society. This also reinforces the suspicion that the foundation of federalism and the consciousness of inclusive nation-building will be weakened.

Risk of authoritarianism: In the pursuit of political stability, the presidential-chief executive system also carries a serious risk of leaning towards authoritarian and despotic tendencies. If a president with direct mandate abuses his broad legitimacy and attempts to weaken the checks and balances enshrined in the constitution, the entire system of governance could be pushed towards executive monopolies. Linz has also warned on this issue that a popularly elected president can use his supreme mandate as a convenient cover for undemocratic or authoritarian actions.

In a country like Nepal, where constitutional institutions are not yet well-established, measures of managerial and judicial control are weak, and internal democracy of political parties is immature and weak, creating an overly strong executive can be counterproductive to democratic values ​​and institutional balance. It can undermine the principles of constitutionalism and increase the possibility of political instability and abuse of power in the long run.

Economic and social impact: Presidential-presidential systems are generally less effective than parliamentary systems in terms of economic development and social equality. Various comparative studies in political science have shown that, with specific exceptions such as the United States, countries that have adopted presidential-presidential systems in developing countries tend to have a negative impact on economic development and social outcomes on average. Since majoritarian decision-making can narrow the inclusive approach to social and economic policy, there is a possibility of increasing income inequality and making it difficult to achieve the goal of inclusive development.

South Asian Experience: The experiences of countries like Pakistan and Sri Lanka have clearly exposed the dangers of centralization of power inherent in a strong executive system and its narrow use. In Sri Lanka, the incident in 2018 when the then President attempted to remove the Prime Minister contrary to the clear interpretation of the Constitution presents a concrete example of the violation of the constitutional limits of the executive.

Similarly, in the historical constitutional development of Pakistan, provisions such as Article 58(2)(b) had given the President wide discretion to dissolve the legislature, which created the possibility of institutionalizing executive arbitrariness. Considering the examples of such incidents, the possibility of abuse of power in a presidential-chieftain system in a sensitive political environment like Nepal with deep political polarization and party competition remains very strong. This can disrupt the normal administrative functioning of the state and seriously hinder the implementation of constitutional priorities such as federalism and inclusive development.

Considering the current context of Nepal, it is imperative to make a careful, long-term and contextual comparative assessment of the arguments of both systems of governance (parliamentary and presidential). Nepal is a culturally, ethnically, religiously and linguistically pluralistic country, where proportional representation and the continuation of inclusive governance are the backbone of the democratic system.

The parliamentary coalition system has provided a historic opportunity to develop a culture of shared governance and power sharing by involving different social classes, geographical regions and political communities. It is also worth remembering that not even a decade has passed since the current constitution was fully implemented. In such a transitional situation, changing the fundamental structure of governance risks questioning constitutional stability and historical legitimacy.

Constitutional scholars and policy analysts have consistently warned that giving newly established democratic institutions time, practice and opportunities for strengthening is an essential process of democratic maturity. Hasty structural changes that undermine the inclusive principles, institutional balance and federal values ​​enshrined in the constitution can create serious risks of political instability, constitutional deviation and social distrust as adverse consequences. Therefore, emphasizing institutional reforms within the existing structure may be a more rational and appropriate policy option at the current stage of Nepal's democratic journey.

In addition, our political history and democratic experience also clearly indicate that changes in the constitutional and structural framework alone are not sufficient for the clarity of the mandate, stability of leadership, and successful implementation of long-term development policies. Strengthening and autonomy of constitutional bodies, maturation of political culture, enhancement of administrative ethics, and strengthening of transparent oversight mechanisms are also indispensable in parallel.

Repeated structural changes in the governance system without fundamental improvements in political conduct and balance of power will not strengthen democracy, but may risk shifting the focus of protectionism and centralization from the Prime Minister to the President. In such a situation, informal power networks, family-business alliances, and opaque decision-making processes are likely to become more solidly institutionalized, and democratic accountability and transparency are likely to become weaker. 

From these perspectives, it is also confirmed that the real policy need of the present is institutional reform and change in political culture rather than constitutional restructuring for Nepal's democratic future. It is also essential to move away from traditional paradigms of power centralization and towards institutional promotion of democratic values ​​based on pluralism, collective decision-making, and shared responsibility.

Seeking refuge in a presidential-prime minister system without a real solution to the structural problems of the state means turning away from pluralistic balance and inviting problems such as the deadlock of dual legitimacy, the risk of authoritarian tendencies, and the intensification of social divisions. This can pave the way for long-term instability and social distrust for a neo-federal society like Nepal with its cultural, linguistic, and ethnic diversity. Therefore, when discussing the governance system, not only the constitutional vision but also Nepal's social plurality, historical sensitivity, and inclusive aspirations for the future should be the central consideration.