How can democracy better deliver? This question summarises the frustrations surrounding liberal democracy not only in Nepal but around the world. As a consequence, populist politicians relying on easy sloganeering rather than holistic policy propositions have emerged and thrived, alongside authoritarian regimes unconstrained by the guardrails of democratic societies.
“Democracy is eroding across the globe through the actions of populist leaders who use majoritarian nationalism to dismantle executive constraints and diminish robust civil liberties. Citizens, too, are losing faith in democracy,” writes Maya Tudor, Professor of Politics and Public Policy at the Blavatnik School of Government, in the latest issue of the Journal of Democracy.
The crisis of democracy is a global phenomenon, but in a country like Nepal, under the current circumstances, the fragility of the system risks turning liberal democratic institutions upside down—derailing the gains made so far in terms of civil liberties and people’s participation.
What can be done? How can Nepal reinvigorate its democracy when the system is centred on ineffective and corrupt political parties?
As the country stands at a crossroads, this column ventures into what, for Nepal, remains the largely undiscovered and uncharted territory of deliberative democracy.
Across the world—both in the Global North and the Global South—a wave of deliberative practices is emerging. These initiatives allow citizens to directly participate and express their voices. From citizens in Brazil having a binding say on how to spend part of municipal budgets, to ad hoc citizens’ forums in Ireland tackling issues like gender equality, drug use and biodiversity loss, to permanent citizens’ assemblies at the regional level in Belgium, and hundreds of local deliberative forums in Japan—a truly bottom-up form of democracy is taking shape.
Even China has experimented with forms of village democracy that, despite the omnipresent oversight of the Chinese Communist Party, have been viewed as a promising model.
No one should dream of going against democracy: PM Deuba
While different in nature and aims, all these experiences share a common understanding: real democracy goes well beyond the ballot box.
Liberal democracy—broadly defined as political systems based on voting and the dominant role of professional politicians—can be complemented and strengthened by models of direct democracy that truly empower citizens. Switzerland is a well-known example of a political system in which major decisions are made through various mechanisms of direct voting, including referendums.
Deliberative practices, however, offer a powerful alternative in which people gather, discuss and deliberate. Although such practices are still evolving and being refined through diverse experiences worldwide, they are increasingly recognised as a means to deepen democracy. There is, however, no single model of deliberative democracy that fits all contexts.
It is also important to note that these practices can coexist with other bottom-up democratic initiatives. In the white paper From Waves to Ecosystems: The Next Stage of Democratic Innovation, Josh Lerner, Co-Executive Director of People Powered, emphasises integrating different models to create a natural ecosystem of participation. This means that traditional elections can be strengthened through a range of participatory mechanisms centred on citizen engagement.
Turning to Nepal, what could be the way forward to combine standard liberal democratic processes with deliberative ones?
First, it is worth remembering that many societies, including those in South Asia, historically practised forms of public consultation and participation, especially at the village level.
Second, Nepal could begin embedding deliberative practices both informally and formally—through legal provisions. For example, local citizens’ forums could be established where people gather to discuss community issues and provide regular feedback and policy suggestions to elected officials.
Currently, the governance of local bodies, particularly the structure of municipal assemblies, offers limited avenues for meaningful public participation. There is a real opportunity to rethink how these bodies function and how the work of elected representatives could be complemented by permanent forums of unelected citizens who voluntarily dedicate time to public deliberation. Initially, such local forums could meet informally, but with the endorsement and support of elected officials.
There are, of course, complexities in implementing these models, including the crucial issue of social inclusion—ensuring they are not captured by local elites. It is also important to recognise that these exercises are increasingly supported by academics and experts promoting evidence-based approaches to deliberation.
Deliberation can flourish through a step-by-step process in which informal initiatives are gradually institutionalised, with the ultimate goal of establishing legal frameworks at federal, provincial, and local levels to define standards and modalities.
For example, participatory budgeting could be implemented relatively easily and made mandatory, as it is already a well-established practice in both the Global North and Global South.
While allocating a portion of a municipal budget through participatory mechanisms is straightforward, the decision-making aspects of other deliberative practices—such as citizens’ forums or “mini-publics,” as experts call them—are still a work in progress. Although most deliberative practices involve collaboration with elected officials, their outcomes are often not legally binding.
Nonetheless, in most cases, elected representatives—both at national and local levels—provide full partnership in organising deliberative exercises by offering not only logistical support but also legitimacy. Even when final deliberations are not binding, governments typically commit to offering an official response to proposals that emerge from these democratic processes.
Governments at all levels can convene citizens’ assemblies to discuss specific topics, as Ireland has done. In the future, Nepal could also consider establishing permanent deliberative bodies, similar to those at the regional level in Belgium.
Could Nepal begin exploring these practices as a way to strengthen and revitalise its democracy?
At present, there is widespread uncertainty about the future of democracy in Nepal. It would already be a remarkable achievement if the current transitional government successfully conducts peaceful and inclusive elections in March.
Admittedly, introducing the idea of deliberative democracy may add to the complexity of the political discourse, but what truly matters is to imagine a future where Nepal’s democracy becomes stronger, more resilient, and more inclusive.
Deliberative democracy encompasses a range of models, but its foundational principles all aim to ensure that democracy delivers better by giving citizens a stronger voice. Nepal could craft its own narrative of enriching democratic practice through innovative approaches rooted in ancient local traditions.
The most important step is to start the conversation—because building a deliberative democracy takes time and is a genuine journey. Yet its potential to build a stronger nation that empowers citizens, rather than self-serving politicians, should not be underestimated.
Ultimately, deliberative practices could offer the most effective tools to meet the aspirations of Nepal’s younger generations—by engaging them through genuine participation rather than tokenism. In many ways, these forms of democracy can indeed be transformative.
