A Better Governance Model for Nepal: Directly Elected Presidential System

Is Nepal's current governance model truly effective in ensuring political stability and economic development? With a history marked by frequent changes in leadership, Nepal has struggled to maintain a stable government. In recent years, Nepal has adopted a Westminster-style parliamentary democracy, characterized by a Prime Minister as the Head of Government and a ceremonial President.

However, the electoral system, which combines the First past the post (FPTP) system with proportional representation, has led to a fragmented political landscape. This has resulted in fewer majorities in parliamentary seats, leading to ongoing political instability. The proliferation of 26 Prime ministers in just 20 years is a clear indication of this instability. Economic development has been stunted by this political turmoil, leaving Nepalis in a state of perpetual unrest.

The question arises: Is there a more suitable form of governance for Nepal that would ensure political stability and foster economic growth? In this discussion, we explore the merits of a directly elected Presidential system as a potential solution for Nepal's governance challenges.

The Flaws of Current Governance System

Nepal's current governance system, which includes a Prime Minister and a cerimonial President, has proven ineffective in addressing the nation's pressing needs. The elected government is often unstable, leading to a series of short-term measures and a lack of consistent policy planning. This has hindered long-term economic and social development, leaving the country behind in terms of progress.

Evaluation of Alternative Governance Models

One suggested alternative is a semi-presidential system, similar to France's. However, this model has been deemed unsuitable for Nepal due to the potential for significant conflicts between the executive and legislative branches. The diverse political landscape of Nepal, with its numerous ethnic and regional groups, makes a semi-presidential system prone to frequent power struggles and political paralysis.

An even more radical suggestion is a form of anarchy, where people meet once a year and lay out guidelines for reasonable behavior, and then live together in peace. While this concept may seem appealing in theory, it lacks practicality and structure. Anarchy would not provide the necessary governance framework to address the complexities of modern society, including economic development, law enforcement, and public services.

The Case for a Directly Elected Presidential System

A directly elected Presidential system, where the President is both Head of State and Head of Government, could address Nepal's governance challenges more effectively. The President would be directly accountable to the electorate, ensuring that leadership is stable and continuous. This would provide a degree of political stability that is currently lacking in the country.

Under a directly elected Presidential system, the President would have the authority to appoint ministers and officials, taking into account the diverse needs of various regions and ethnic groups. Proportional representation could still be maintained in the Legislature, ensuring that all voices are heard. The President would act as a unifying figure, promoting national consensus and reducing political polarization.

Addressing Concerns

One concern about a Presidential system is the potential for dictatorship. However, the idea of a democratically elected President ensures that power remains in the hands of the people. Nepalis have shown a strong commitment to democracy and do not desire a return to authoritarian rule. A directly elected President is more likely to serve the interests of the people, rather than a single group, as the country prides itself on its diversity and inclusivity.

Another argument against a Presidential system is the lack of proportional representation in the Legislature. However, the President could help to mitigate this issue by appointing ministers and officials with a focus on regional and ethnic diversity. This would ensure that all voices are heard and represented in the government.

Conclusion

In conclusion, a directly elected Presidential system is the best form of governance for Nepal. It offers political stability and the ability to address the diverse needs of the country's regions and ethnic groups. While there are concerns about the potential for dictatorship or the lack of proportional representation, these can be effectively managed through democratic processes and inclusive governance.

The time is ripe for Nepal to adopt a governance model that prioritizes stability, unity, and inclusivity. The hope is that one day, Nepal will embrace this new system and move towards a brighter future for all its citizens.