According to the Greek philosopher Plato, “When leaders who please the emotions of the people choose popularity over truth and knowledge, then democracy turns into mob rule.” This means that when political leadership begins to prioritize emotional slogans and momentary popularity over conscience, knowledge, and long-term thinking, then the democratic decision-making process weakens and the will of the people becomes limited to the impulses of the crowd.

If this trend continues, will democracy in Nepal be based on ideas, policies and accountability, or will populist politics guided by emotional slogans and the immediate desires of the crowd create a situation that will weaken democratic institutions in the future?

A worrying trend has begun to emerge in Nepali politics in recent years. Politics is no longer a competition of ideas, policies and long-term vision, but a game of crowd demonstration. The status of political parties, the influence of leaders and the legitimacy of movements are being measured not by debate and principles, but by how many people can be brought to the streets. This trend is weakening the spirit of democracy. 

The essence of democracy is the deliberate participation of citizens. Where voters make decisions based on ideas, parties compete through policies and programs, and the media becomes a responsible forum for public debate. But today's Nepali political reality seems to be gradually moving away from this ideal. Especially for small and new parties, the main condition for gaining political recognition has become the 'ability to show the crowd'. Large gatherings, sloganeering, and demonstrations have become a means of proving political power, rather than ideological clarity, policy proposals, or institutional maturity.

This trend is not accidental. As established parties have lost public trust for decades, new parties and campaigns are filling the political vacuum that has arisen. But unfortunately, instead of building alternative politics, most have adopted the old style more aggressively. As a result, there has been a competition of demonstrations, not a competition of ideas. The question of ‘how many people came?’ has replaced the question of ‘what was said?’

Serious questions also need to be raised about the role of the media in this process. The media is not only the ‘fourth organ’ in a democracy, but is also a key institution in shaping public conscience. But in recent times, the mainstream media seems to have prioritized crowds, noise, and sensation over policy debate, ideological discussion, and factual analysis. Large gatherings, controversial statements, and emotional slogans easily get ‘headlines,’ but in-depth debate on the structural problems of education, health, the economy, or federalism is pushed to the background. This has a direct impact on civic consciousness. When the media makes protests the center of the news, citizens also start to base their political evaluations on the protests. This makes democratic dialogue superficial and encourages impulses rather than reason. Crowd psychology is not always stable: support today, outrage tomorrow. Politics based on such unstable foundations is dangerous for long-term governance and policymaking.

Democracy is a system of debate, not just demonstration. Debate creates a space for disagreement, separates complex problems from simple slogans, and inspires the search for policy solutions. But when politics is limited to demonstrations, disagreement turns into hostility. Citizens who ask questions are labeled as ‘opponents’, and criticism is considered an ‘attack’. This damages democratic culture.

It is time for small parties and new political forces to also self-evaluate. Showing off to the crowd may be useful for a momentary effect, but long-term political credibility is built only through ideas, organization, and policy clarity. History has shown that crowds can bring power, but they cannot govern. Governance requires institutional capacity, expertise, and continuous dialogue.

In this context, the role of civil society, intellectuals and educational institutions is also important. They should create pressure to make political debates think-centered again. Universities, think-tanks and citizen forums should be able to become centers of in-depth discussions on public policy. Beyond the immediate popularity of social media, a debate on long-term national interests is necessary.