There has been a long-standing debate in Nepali political and intellectual circles in favor of a stable government and a powerful prime minister. It is not surprising that such a narrative has emerged at a time when the country is caught in a cycle of political instability, a syndicate of leader- ship , and corruption and misrule. Even after more than three decades of democracy, there has been widespread dissatisfaction, anger, and disillusionment among the people due to the lack of expected economic development and delivery. This is why the parties including the Congress, UML, and NCP, which have been ruling the country for a long time, were shamefully defeated in the February 21 election. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), which has made corruption control and good governance its main electoral weapon, has formed a powerful government after gaining about two-thirds of the votes, and Balendra Shah, the most popular among contemporary politicians, has become a strong prime minister. Therefore, the people's aspiration for a stable government and a powerful prime minister has also been fulfilled.

The people were optimistic about some of the government's decisions in terms of corruption control, good governance, and service delivery. But Shah's centralization of power upon taking oath and his decision-making process and unresponsive working style since becoming the mayor of Kathmandu have also raised doubts. Shah, who ignored the first House of Representatives formed through elections without even addressing them, mysteriously prorogued the parliament and issued a series of ordinances, raising serious questions about his intentions and commitment to the parliament. The unresponsive and oppressive policy implemented in the name of solving the problem of squatters has been harshly criticized by the opposition parties, intellectual community and civil society. Is the government becoming liberal and unresponsive? What kind of democracy do the people want? Is it a system and an institution or a powerful prime minister? Is the leadership that the people want democratic, visionary and responsible or populist, miraculous and unresponsive? Some complex questions have been raised. Therefore, it is inevitable for the future of democracy to discuss such questions and reach concrete conclusions.

Democracy means system and institution
Democracy means system, method and process. If democratic institutions are functional and effective, the system will develop, and only after the system is developed will the system develop. Democracy does not mean just a system of governance, but a way of life. Democracy is legal and process-oriented. Democracy is not governance, but good governance and not power, but responsibility. In a democracy, the government is not powerful, it is accountable to the people and the government is not controlling, it is effective. A powerful government and a strong prime minister are the concepts of an authoritarian and totalitarian system. If an absolutely powerful government and a strong prime minister are expected, then the king was more powerful than the current prime minister and there was political stability during the Panchayat period. Should authoritarianism and totalitarianism be followed in the search for a powerful government and a strong prime minister? 

The most complex problem in the context of Nepal is responsibility and good governance. There is a democratic system, a constitution, parties, and three-tier governments. But there is no good governance and responsibility. The government, parties, and leadership have not been able to assimilate democracy as a system and a responsible system. Therefore, not only the government, party, and leadership, but also to some extent democracy and the constitution were questioned. The latest example of this is the much-talked-about Gen-G rebellion of last Bhadra. But even after that rebellion, the old parties did not seem to have reformed, transformed, and reorganized themselves by taking education. If such a suicidal trend continues, the old parties themselves will become irrelevant. In the name of system and methodology, the status quo trend is dominant in the old parties, while in the name of results and performance, the new parties have a populist and unaccountable trend. Both such trends are equally dangerous for democracy.

In the context of Nepal, the most complex problem is accountability and good governance. There is a democratic system, a constitution, parties, and three-tier governments. But there is no good governance and accountability.   The advocacy of a powerful and popular leadership by devaluing the system and institutions is a misleading statement by populists and authoritarians. If democratic institutions are not effective and functional, then authoritarian and totalitarian rulers are born from the democratic system. Despite being empowered due to the institutional development of democracy, no American president has ever been an authoritarian or dictator. Visionary leaders like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt laid a strong foundation for democracy and economic development. If the president had been made powerful without institutional development of democracy, as in African and Latin American countries, American democracy would probably have crashed again and again. 

Unfortunately, on the one hand, the institutional development of democracy has not been possible for more than 35 years. On the other hand, democratic, constitutional, and public institutions are not functional, strong, and capable. In some times and contexts, there have been contradictions and conflicts between the executive, legislature, and executive. Therefore, these institutions have also lost the trust of the people. Since these institutions are not strong, capable, and functional, the government, party, and leadership have not been accountable. Similarly, the reputation of the media, which is considered the fourth organ of the state, and the civil society and intellectual community that keep a watchful eye on the government, parties, and state agencies, is also declining. What could be a greater irony for the people and democracy?

Independent courts and constitutional bodies are the pillars of democracy. But these pillars have not been able to function independently and autonomously according to democratic values ​​and the vision of the constitution. Due to unwanted political division and partisanship, these institutions have also been losing the trust of the people. Therefore, ending partisanship and building and developing functional democratic institutions is the need of the day. But the working style of Shah, who came to power in the name of good governance, is not coordinated, transparent, and accountable. As committed as he seems to be to results and performance, he is equally indifferent to methods and processes. 

Acemoglu and Robinson's Institutional Theory
Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson, authors of world-famous books such as 'Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy' and 'Why Nations Fail' and winners of the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2024, have given top priority to democratic institutions. The authors, who have been studying and researching countries in Africa, America, Eastern Europe and Asia, have expressed the view that functional, effective and strong institutions are a prerequisite for the success of democracy and economic development. They have not only advocated political institutions for the success of democracy, but have argued that economic institutions are equally important for economic development. They believe that political and economic institutions complement each other. Therefore, systems and institutions are not only related to the existence and future of democracy, but are also indispensable from the point of view of economic development.

Their research on democracy, economic development and delivery, based on facts and figures, concludes that ‘In countries where political and economic institutions are strong, autonomous and functional, democracy has also succeeded and economic development has also taken place. But in countries where it is not, democracy has also been in trouble and economic development has not taken place.’ Acemoglu and Robinson have concluded in ‘Why Nations Fail’ that if state institutions are exploitative, it will have an adverse effect on economic development. Embracing the same reality, they have suggested developing liberal political and inclusive economic institutions. They have concluded that only economic development and prosperity will ensure the long life of democracy. 

What kind of leadership: powerful or responsible?
The people are looking for a servant, not a ruler. Leadership is not about command and prohibition, but dialogue and coordination. Leadership is not about control and intervention, it is about a coordinator and facilitator who solves problems through dialogue and collaboration. However, when analyzed in terms of the criteria and characteristics of leadership, it seems that a wrong narrative has been established in Nepal. More powerful than responsible, more delusion than vision, and more propaganda than performance have been defined as the criteria for successful leadership. Magic, miracles, and stuntmanship seem to be the dominant trend now. The series of deifying or demonizing leadership continues. But such a definition and trend is wrong, and the people also need to be freed from this illusion. Those who propagate miracles and magicians are not democrats, they are populists and irresponsible. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Ceausescu are different incarnations of populism, communism, and authoritarianism. There are five main criteria for leadership - vision, responsibility, strong will, clean image, and transparent lifestyle. Therefore, performance, not delusion, not vision and propaganda, is the need of the day. A party or leadership that ignores methods, processes, and institutions and absolutely shouts results and performance cannot be democratic and responsible.    

It seems that the people are looking for a hero and a savior now. But it seems that villains are dominating in the guise of heroes and saviors. In their search for heroes, the people sometimes silently supported Gyanendra, sometimes gave an unexpected mandate to Prachanda. Similarly, now, seeing a ray of hope in Shah and Ravi Lamichhane, they have expressed unprecedented faith. But because these and similar parties, characters and tendencies have repeatedly deceived the people's feelings by playing games with them, there is an extremely negative view of politics, government, parties, and leadership. The test of democracy for Shah and Lamichhane, who succeeded in coming to power by taking maximum advantage of this public sentiment, has begun. But the ordinance system that was initiated less than two months after the government was formed and the repression of squatters in a countrywide authoritarian style have exposed the true face of the government. If there is no minimum humane treatment and compassion for the landless squatters, it is foolish to expect a dignified democratic process like human rights, freedom, transparency, and accountability from this government. This is just the beginning, the ironic political scenario remains to be seen. Therefore, the ‘emotional’ nature of populists’ emotional expressions has been found to be costly to the people.

What the people are looking for is not a ruler, but a servant. Leadership is not command and prohibition, but dialogue and coordination. Leadership is not controlling and interfering, but a coordinator and facilitator who solves problems through dialogue and collaboration. In fact, the people are not looking for a talismanic hero, magician or stuntman, but a visionary leadership with a clear vision and roadmap to build a prosperous Nepal. They are not looking for a businessman who cultivates power in the name of corruption control and good governance, but a virtuous leadership that guarantees good governance. They are looking for a responsible and transparent leadership, not a power-hungry one who runs a syndicate of power in the name of democratic practice. They are looking for real democracy and meritocracy, not party system, leader system and faction system. The people want the old parties to be transformed and restructured with generational transfer and the new parties to become democrats and liberals with visionary leadership. Unfortunately, contrary to this aspiration, the risk that old parties will not transform and new ones will not become democratic and accountable is increasing. 

The book ‘The Myth of Strong Leadership’ published in 2014 is very relevant in this regard. Professor of Political Science at Oxford University and British author Archie Brown has challenged the dominant, traditional and established view of political leadership to date. Brown, who has studied and researched world-famous leaders such as US President Franklin Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Gorbachev, and others, concludes that ‘the stronger, more powerful and dominant the leadership, the better the governance and the more successful the leadership. But such a view is not only misleading, but also wrong.’ Brown is clear that leadership in a democracy should not be powerful, but visionary and accountable. 

Meaningful message of India and Pakistan
The history of India and Pakistan is relevant to the interrelationship between democracy and leadership. सन् १९४७ मा बेलायती उपनिवेशबाट भारत र पाकिस्तान एकै दिन स्वतन्त्र भई एकै दिन लोकतन्त्र स्थापना भएको थियो । लोकतन्त्रको संस्थागत विकास भएको कारणले अपवादबाहेक (सन् १९७५ देखि ७७ सम्म इन्दिरा गान्धीको कार्यकालमा २१ महिनाको संकटकाल) भारतीय लोकतन्त्र दुर्घटनामा परेन । प्रथम प्रधानमन्त्री जवाहरलाल नेहरू दूरदर्शी, लोकतन्त्रवादी र उदारवादी नेता थिए । लोकतन्त्रको संस्थागत विकास गरी समुन्नत भारतको आधारशिला नेहरूले खडा गरेका थिए । भारत जस्तो विशाल र विविधतामूलक देशलाई लोकतान्त्रिक प्रणालीमार्फत एकताको सूत्रमा अनुबन्ध गर्न सफल भएका थिए । बेलायतले जस्तै संसदीय लोकतन्त्र अनुसरण गरेको भारतको लोकतन्त्र र संसदीय अभ्यासलाई विश्वमै असल अभ्यासमध्ये मानिन्छ ।

तर संस्थागत विकास नभएको कारणले गर्दा सैन्य शासनलगायत पाकिस्तानको लोकतन्त्र पटक–पटक दुर्घटनाग्रस्त भयो । कागजमा भए पनि वास्तविक रूपमा पाकिस्तानमा लोकतन्त्र छैन । सन् १९५८ देखि ०७१ सम्म, १९७७ देखि ०८८ सम्म र १९९९ देखि २००८ सम्म तीन–तीन पटकसम्म ‘कू’ गरी लोकतन्त्र स्थापना भएको ७५ वर्षमध्ये करिब २५ वर्ष त सैन्य शासन नै चलेको थियो । त्यसपछि पनि आवरणमा नागरिक सरकार भए पनि वास्तवमा सबै सेनाको कठपुतली सरकार हुन् । सेनाको कठपुतली भएपछि मात्रै सत्तामा पुग्छन् र टिक्छन् । होइन भने सत्ताबाट गलहत्याइन्छन् । पाकिस्तानमा न निर्वाचन आयोग स्वतन्त्र छ, न न्यायालयलगायत राज्यका अन्य निकायहरू । लोकतन्त्रको सिद्धान्तअनुसार शक्ति पृथकीकरण पनि छैन, लोकतान्त्रिक संस्था पनि सबल छैनन् । अहिले पनि सरकार, सत्तारूढ दल, सेना र न्यायालयले आ–आफ्नो अनुकूल हुने गरी लोकतन्त्रको परिभाषा गर्दै आएका छन् र लोकतन्त्रका नाममा गैरलोकतान्त्रिक शासन गर्दै आएका छन् । त्यसैले लोकतन्त्रको सफलता–असफलतामा नेतृत्वको भूमिका कति निर्णायक हुने रहेछ भन्ने वास्तविकताको स्पष्ट तस्बिर देखिने भारत र पाकिस्तानको इतिहासबाट शिक्षा स्वयं आफ्नै स्वास्थ्यका लागि लाभदायक हुनेछ ।