Power-Centric Politics and a Democracy Pushed Toward Dissolution

The core spirit of democracy lies in the sovereignty of the people. However, Nepal’s current political practice has been steadily weakening that spirit. The political trajectory that has reached the point of parliamentary dissolution is not merely a question of constitutional procedure; it is a stark indicator of a profound crisis of public trust. Even though a government was formed under the leadership of Sushila Karki, the dissolution of Parliament itself has become a symbol of the failure of democratic institutions.

The gap between commitments made to the people during elections and the conduct displayed after gaining power has grown dangerously wide. This distance is eroding not only political stability but also democratic morality. The dissolution of Parliament—the highest forum of popular representation—stems fundamentally from this crisis of trust, where the people’s mandate has been reduced to a tool for retaining power.

Political parties appear confined to short-term power equations rather than guided by long-term vision, ideological clarity, or sound policy-making. The formation and collapse of alliances have become routine, with power-sharing, not common programs, determining outcomes. The dissolution of Parliament has institutionally reinforced this power-centric mindset. Governments change, equations shift, but the living standards of the people remain unchanged. This irony is no longer temporary; it has become a structural problem.

The obsession with power evident in leadership has weakened accountability. The culture of assuming moral responsibility in the face of allegations of corruption and abuse has nearly vanished. The tendency to cling to office by branding investigations as political vendettas has further accelerated institutional decay. The decision to dissolve Parliament sends the same message: a dangerous notion that political status stands above the law.

The role of the opposition has also failed to be effective in this process. The habit of remaining silent while in power and becoming aggressive only after exiting it has weakened parliamentary oversight. As Parliament increasingly appears less a forum for debate and more an arena for power bargaining, the credibility of the legislature itself has come under threat. This weakness created space for an overbearing executive, whose most extreme expression emerged in the form of parliamentary dissolution.

The growing frustration among the younger generation is a direct consequence of this political instability. Leaving the country in search of education, employment, and opportunity has begun to feel like a compulsion. Among the youth, the sense is deepening that politics—meant to be an instrument of change—has instead become an obstacle. When democracy fails to offer hope for the future, society drifts toward silent revolt—an alarming warning for any democracy.

Pressure on the media and civil society is another facet of this power-centric tendency. The practice of portraying criticism as treason, conspiracy, or a source of instability is narrowing the space for freedom of expression. A healthy democracy does not fear criticism; it is refined through it. Power that cannot tolerate criticism ultimately distances itself from the people.

Meaningful, timely politics is not a strategy to preserve power through measures like dissolving Parliament, but the courage to rebuild public trust. This must begin with internal democracy within political parties—through transparency, competitive leadership selection, and respect for expertise in policy-making. Moreover, democracy cannot be strengthened without cultivating a culture that views public office as service, not power.

Ultimately, history has made it clear: power is temporary, public opinion enduring. If political leadership continues to refuse to learn from its own mistakes, change will come from outside. That change may be peaceful—or it may be turbulent. Therefore, the need of the moment is not blame-trading but deep self-reflection. The change the people demand must be visible not in speeches, but in conduct. Only such change can revitalize a democracy weary from the crisis of parliamentary dissolution.