According to the Constitution, Nepal is a federal parliamentary republic, where the Prime Minister with executive powers is elected through the parliament. However, due to frequent changes in government in recent years, this system has seen many problems, including political instability. Meanwhile, some individuals and groups are demanding a directly-elected Prime Minister. This article seeks to analyze positive and negative effects of this system as well as the challenges of the current parliamentary democracy.
Challenges of parliamentary democracy
One of the most persistent challenges in Nepal’s parliamentary model is the frequent change of governments, which often interrupts long-term development projects. For example, in the pursuit of power, political actors often form fragile coalitions that collapse quickly, while recurring corruption scandals further weaken public trust and spark protests on the streets.
Lack of political culture is another challenge. Leaders obsessed with their own interests do not put the people first. Problems such as corruption, protectionism and nepotism have weakened the effectiveness of democracy. And an increase in economic uncertainty invariably makes foreign elements more active in fragile polities like ours.
In addition, there are social problems linked to human rights, such as gender-based violence, child marriage and bonded labor. The voices of minority groups such as women, Dalits, people with disabilities and sexual and gender minorities remain unheard. Even two decades after the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement that ended a decade-long war, transitional justice works remain incomplete. All of these factors are challenging Nepal’s democracy.
A directly-elected PM
The current constitution provides for the prime minister to be elected through the parliament. However, some new political forces such as the Rastriya Swatantra Party have proposed a directly-elected prime minister. The GenZ movement has also raised the demand for a term limit and a system of direct elections for the prime minister. This change would require a constitutional amendment needing a two-thirds majority in the parliament. The current interim prime minister, Sushila Karki, has stated that she does not have the mandate to effect this change in the constitution.
Positive effects
The system of a directly-elected prime minister can bring political stability as chances of the government serving a full term are higher. It provides continuity to national development works and supports economic and social progress. Since the elected leader depends on a broader support of the people, this system protects the country from extreme left or right-wing ideologies by encouraging centrist policies. A directly-elected Prime Minister is free from parliamentary wranglings, so s/he can become a strong executive by taking decisions quickly and effectively.
The contemporary history of South Asia and Europe offer successful examples of this type of system. In Sri Lanka, for example, the president is directly elected and holds executive powers. Following the end of the civil war in 2009, the South Asian country, under the strong leadership of Mahinda Rajapaksa, made temporary gains in sectors such as tourism and infrastructure.
France’s semi-presidential system illustrates how a directly-elected president can drive reforms, as seen under Emmanuel Macron’s leadership with labor and EU policy changes. Macron maintained political stability and responded effectively to the covid pandemic. These examples show that direct elections provide leadership with popular support and make it easier to implement long-term policies. There are also successful examples of prime ministers elected through the parliament. Under Narendra Modi, India achieved economic growth from 2014 to 2024, including GST reforms and Digital India, making the country the fifth largest global economy. In Europe, the UK’s parliamentary system has long provided stability. The Tony Blair government, for example, brought economic prosperity by improving education and health. These successes clearly show that parliamentary systems can take balanced decisions by incorporating diverse views.
Negative effects
This system is not a panacea. Conflicts between the president and the prime minister can increase under this system, thereby deepening instability. Currently, there is a problem regarding the executive authority of caretaker Prime Minister Sushila Karki, who came to power (not through the usual parliamentary process) following a youths-led movement that toppled an elected government, and President Ramchandra Paudel, who remains as the head of the state and the enforcer as well as the protector of the constitution. Limiting the powers of PM Karki, President Paudel has tasked the current government with a singular mandate: conducting elections in six months.
In this context, it may be worthwhile to revisit the interim government under Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, which took shape after the people's movement of 1990. With full support from King Birendra, the government successfully conducted parliamentary elections and also introduced a constitution within a year.
Whereas PM Karki has not received such support from President Paudel, meaning holding elections within the deadline will be easier said than done. This situation gives an ample indication of problems that directly-elected PMs may have to face if Nepal opts for such a system.
