Temptation of a directly-elected ‘hero’

Nepal's political landscape is once again grappling with a fundamental constitutional question: should the country retain its parliamentary system or move towards a directly elected executive? This recurring debate is fueled by persistent frustrations with the instability and bargaining inherent in coalition governments.

“

Every generation in Nepal is tempted to believe that its constitutional frustrations can be solved by finding the right leader, and thus, rediscovers, once every few years, an old constitutional debate over whether to retain a parliamentary system or directly elect its chief executive.

Proponents of a directly elected chief executive argue that such a system would provide greater governmental stability by freeing the leader from the constant need to negotiate with fragile parliamentary factions. They believe it would grant the executive an independent democratic mandate directly from the people, thereby minimizing the influence of party elites and fostering more decisive leadership. This argument gains traction as periodic elections do not always yield majority governments, leaving the executive vulnerable.

“

With the RSP’s leadership publicly committing to Balendra Shah’s full term, the ‘stability’ justification has lost its urgency.

However, experiences from other nations suggest caution is warranted. While direct election shifts the source of legitimacy, it does not eradicate political disagreement. The American example illustrates how divided government can result in prolonged legislative deadlock. Nepal's fragmented multi-party system might present a different dynamic, but a directly elected executive could still face a legislature controlled by rival parties, potentially leading to gridlock rather than stability.

“

Constitutions are not merely mechanisms for selecting officeholders. They are frameworks for distributing power, creating incentives and restraining political authority.

The core of the debate transcends merely selecting officeholders; it concerns the very framework of power distribution, incentives, and the restraint of political authority. The question for Nepal is whether constitutional reform will strengthen democratic institutions or further entrench a political culture that increasingly centers on individual leaders rather than established constitutional offices.

“

Experiences elsewhere, however, suggest that the promise of stability should be approached with caution.