Under a democratic system, a country conducts various elections, many of which also establish new democratic traditions. In Nepal, there has long been a desire for debates among influential leaders contesting elections. Until now, however, national-level debates were largely absent, as candidates would run in one or more constituencies and directly secure seats in the House of Representatives. In countries where the president or prime minister is directly elected, debates are often organised to make the process more accessible to the public. The debates held during U.S. presidential elections, for example, are closely watched around the world. In Nepal, however, the president and prime minister are not directly elected. The prime minister is appointed only after members of the House of Representatives (HoR), elected from different constituencies, provide the required majority. Coincidentally, in this election, political parties have already announced the leaders they intend to appoint as prime minister. The Nepali Congress has put forward its president, Gagan Kumar Thapa; the CPN-UML has nominated its chairman, KP Sharma Oli; and the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) has proposed Balendra Sah. As a result, the uncertainty over who will become prime minister, a hallmark of previous elections, has effectively ended. Whichever party wins the majority, or forms a coalition, its chosen leader will assume the prime ministership.
'Daring Debates' held for the first time in Nepal among college...
If the prime minister is effectively predetermined, why not provide voters with advance information about them? Evaluating these leaders in advance allows citizens to make informed choices and maximises support for their party’s candidates. There is growing demand on social media for public debates among prime ministerial candidates. In this context, UML chairman Oli has expressed his willingness to participate and has requested a public debate on why he should become prime minister. Initially considered potentially unwilling, he agreed readily. By contrast, Balendra Sah, competing alongside Oli from the RSP, has rejected a public debate. Despite applause from his supporters, he remains unwilling to participate. Nepali Congress president Thapa, however, has shown no hesitation in preparing for such a debate. Embracing public debates in Nepalese politics could make elections simpler and more cost-effective. Many argue that elections are currently expensive, with lengthy and costly door-to-door campaigning that is difficult to sustain within the budget prescribed by the Election Commission. Public debates could provide an alternative, reaching voters directly—even through mobile devices—while presenting candidates’ arguments clearly. This would allow voters to understand candidates’ objectives, policies, and governance plans, enabling more informed decision-making.
Such debates could be organised through ‘town hall’ meetings and could include not only prime ministerial candidates but also candidates from each constituency. In the absence of such debates, candidates have often resorted to theatrics to attract voters. Instead, intellectual engagement could attract voters more effectively. When citizens understand the work and services candidates intend to deliver once elected, their decisions become easier. Nepal has the human resources and institutional capacity to conduct such debates. Moreover, with widespread use of information technology, the population is well-positioned to benefit from these discussions. Dialogue is the heart of democracy. Only through debate and discussion can democratic goals be achieved. Questions posed during such debates play a crucial role in democracy. Citizens can ask candidates questions and receive considered responses—this is the essence of democratic engagement. Candidates who provide reasoned answers and demonstrate their ability to lead effectively are more likely to be elected. If Nepal wants elections that are both cost-effective and credible, it must establish a tradition of public debates. Citizens are ready to hear the arguments of the three prime ministerial candidates—Thapa, Oli, and Sah—and to vote based on those arguments. It is time for this demand to be heard.
