Democracy's cruel paradox: The systematic triumph of takers over those who serve
Summary
Democracy can survive elections and constitutional institutions while still losing the capacity to deliver justice, public services and accountability. Nepal’s democratic progress is weighed against patronage, corruption and institutional capture that reward loyalty over competence.
Key Points
- The article argues that democracy must be judged by institutional capacity, not just elections and formal constitutional structures.
- It says Nepal’s democratic progress has been undermined by patronage, corruption, and the gradual capture of public institutions.
- The replacement of competence with loyalty is described as a dangerous paradox that weakens governance and public trust.
- The piece calls for professional civil service, accountable security institutions and performance-based governance.
