Challenging The Status Quo: Nepal’s Call For A New World Order

TK Arun

From Trump’s MAGA to Kathmandu’s GenZ, emotive mobilisation around single issues/leaders is outweighing considered citizenly engagement. It’s regime change minus constructive agenda

Is there a common thread to the political unravellings, bordering on crisis, manifesting as outbursts of popular anger against the incumbent govt, that have rocked country after country in the past few years? It is tempting to diagnose a crisis of democracy, as some have, but that is too facile.

The problem is a crisis of democracy only in the sensein which a crippling shortage of food is called a food crisis. What afflicts polities around the world, whether in the rich world or the Global South, is a deficit of democracy, commencing with conceptual obfuscation that identifies democracy as the institutions and rites of democracy.

Inchoate popular anger against globalised growth that has allowed a tiny minority to grow obscenely wealthy, even as the majority see their living standards stagnate, has brought Trump to power in US. He has convinced his party and quite a large number of Americans that the problem is that uncaring Democrats have allowed the rest of the world to take advantage of America. He is showing the middle finger to the rest of the world, to broad domestic acclaim.

India’s neighbourhood has been seething with discontent. Army has taken back control in Pakistan, faced with popular protest, with a civilian govt fronting it, naturally. Govts tumbledin Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. Myanmar is in civil war. Nepal has just seen youth rage dislodge a govt and youth representatives choose the head of the interim govt on Discord, whose chatrooms are used primarily by gamers. Indonesia writhes in protest against privileged legislators, who vote themselves fancy perks, even as fresh graduates struggle to get a job.

All of Europe is in ferment, feverishly resenting the migrants in their midst, different sections of the populace sensing different threats, variously to Christendom, to cultural integrity and civilisational authenticity, apart from to job security and to fiscal prudence. Protest grips France, Germany, Britain and other European nations. The malaise afflicts Latin America as well. “Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold/Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.”

All the countries are democracies. US is the oldest democracy. The French staged a revolution to secure Liberté, Égalité and Fraternité. In Britain, too, King Charles I had to lose his head, for democracy to take root. Nepal is the youngest Republic of the lot. Most of them have constitutions. All of them hold elections, have political parties, leaders with loyal followings, parliaments, debates, lawmakers and lawmaking.

Yet, their peoples are disgruntled, and prone to occasional violent displays of discontent. Has democracy failed these states? Or, as our pundits posit, is there a crisis in their democracy?

A simpler, starker explanation is that they only have the formal structures of democracy, but not democracy itself. It is easy and tempting to confuse the institutional framework of democracy for democracy itself.

People do not make this mistake with a spade and a hole in the ground. They call a spade a spade, a means to digging a hole, and would not confuse the instrumentality with the desired goal. But these are physical things you can see. With abstract concepts, clarity is harder.

The bitter truth is that democracy subsists in engagement, not in formal institutions. Citizens must be engaged with not just their own individual problems,but with broad notions about the policy choices available at the level of the collective, and the necessity of tradeoffs, without according preferential or, which is the same thing, discriminatory treatment to anyone.

It is vital for ordinary people to choose their representatives with the awareness that they have to make hard choices. Voters must be aware of the problems, and their complexity. This can happen if and only if politicians engage with them on the problems, rather than bad-mouthing opponents and claiming how great they will make the country again.

Social media helps reduce public focus to a single issue, a single leader, when it does not distract and dissipate attention with infinite possibilities to entertain oneself, measure oneself against peers, fret about the results, worry about missing out on what others enjoy and to isolate oneself in a cocoon of self-indulgence in which there is no trace of the shared discourse on public affairs that is essential for democratic engagement.

To engage the entire population in such a constant dialogue, we need, apart from a responsible media, functional political parties that interact with the people constantly, and not just on election eve. It is such engagement that gives life to democracy, and clarity on what should replace the demolished status quo.

Yes, occasionally, a single, dominant problem might be the focus. And emotive single-issue mobilisation can make and unmake govts – as corruption and nepotism have in Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Bliss it might be in that dawn to be alive, and to be young,very heaven, as the poet said. But, in the absence of clarityon a constructive agenda that should succeed the deconstruction, that ecstasy would prove short-lived, and of the kind that delivers a severe hangover.

TK Arun is a Journalist, formerly Editor, Opinion at the Economic Times

The article was published in Times Of India as The Core as Nepal To US: Throw Out The Old Order…Then What? on 18 September 2025.

Disclaimer: All views expressed in the article belong to the author and not necessarily to the organisation.

Acknowledgement: This article was posted by Srishti, a research intern at IMPRI.