Citizen Engagement Boosts Democracy

Democracy is frequently understood as “rule by the people,” often exemplified by systems of government in which representatives are elected to parliament through popular voting. However, such simplified definitions do not fully capture the depth, complexity, and possibilities inherent in democratic practice. Democracy may be better understood as an ongoing and evolving conversation in which robust discussion and debate are sustained through the participation of diverse voices. Participation can be expressed through voting, peaceful protest, candidacy for public office and numerous other forms of civic engagement through which collective governance is continually shaped and exercised in action through the political process.

Today, as many different forms of democracy are found as there are many democratic nations in the world. No two systems are made the same, and no single system can be taken as a “model.” Presidential and parliamentary democracies are practiced, democracies are organised as federal or unitary systems, proportional voting systems are used in some democracies while majoritarian systems are used in others, and in some cases, democracies are also governed as monarchies and so on. A perfectly democratic society is more an aspiration than a reality. In practice, democracy exists as a delicate equilibrium between citizens and the state, shaped by a continual negotiation between two traditions.

Collective action

Liberal Democracy prioritises individual autonomy and maintains a deep suspicion of power concentrated in the hands of the state or dominant groups. Yet in doing so, it often allows economic or social elites to accumulate disproportionate influence. Social democracy, by contrast, seeks to advance equality through collective action, mobilising the state, institutions, and organised groups to correct social and economic imbalances. However, when extended too far, this model risks encroaching upon personal liberties through excessive regulation and governance. 

Democracy, therefore, lives in the space between these impulses. It is not the triumph of one principle over the other, but the perpetual negotiation between them, a tension in which liberty and equality restrain, correct, and redefine each other. Every year on Falgun 7, the heart of Nepal beats a little louder. Democracy Day is not just a celebration; it is a day of remembrance, gratitude, and deep emotion. It is the day when the silent tears of the people turned into a thunderous voice that no tyranny could silence. The overthrow of the Rana regime in 2007 B.S. was undeniably a revolt against oppression. The Rana regime had deep flaws and concentrated power within a ruling elite.

Yet, the democratic movements were never only about replacing rulers. They were about building a nation where citizens could gain dignity, equality, peace, opportunity, and hope. The true goal of democracy was not merely political change; it was national transformation. Yet the sacrifice for democracy by the people was not merely anti-Rana. It was also deeply aspirational. 

Over the decades, however, democracy in Nepal has increasingly been reduced to a so-called political ritual through various personal needs rather than a social and national mission. 

Elections are held, governments change frequently, slogans are shouted but deeper democratic energy seems to be fading. The very people who once marched for democracy now ask, quietly and painfully. “What did we gain?” When democracy becomes synonymous only with forming and collapsing governments, it loses its purpose. Democracy is not merely the absence of autocracy. It is the presence of accountability, opportunity, justice, and participation. When democracy becomes confined to ballot boxes, political parties, and parliamentary arithmetic, it loses its energy.

Today, democracy is often misunderstood as party-based rule, where forming and toppling governments becomes the central activity of political life. Political instability has been normalised, even justified, in the name of democratic freedom. But instability was never the promise of democracy – stability with accountability was.

More worrying is how democracy is increasingly equated only with federalism. Federalism was envisioned as a tool for inclusion, decentralisation, and development. Yet public debate often revolves and criticizes power-sharing while development lags. Roads, jobs, education, healthcare, and opportunities in the nation remain the real democratic promises that are still waiting to be fulfilled. Criticism is necessary in a democracy but constructive criticism with responsibility is essential. Democracy becomes strong and active by not leaders or rulers being perfect, but because citizens refuse to give up on collective responsibility. 

A dangerous misconception trend has emerged in our country: the belief that democracy is only the responsibility of leaders or rulers. When governance fails, people retreat into criticism, cynicism and blame politicians, parties, federal structures or even democracy itself. But democracy is not a spectator sport. Various fighters for Nepal’s democratic movements did not sacrifice themselves so that people could merely complain from the sidelines. They envisioned an active citizenry, one that questions power responsibly, participates constructively and contributes beyond elections.

Commitment to future 

Democracy weakens when people disengage and strengthens when they participate not only politically, but socially and economically. Democracy Day is not just about remembering the past- it is about renewing our commitment to the future. Democracy thrives when citizens participate, question, vote, and hold leaders accountable. It flourishes when diversity is respected, equality is practiced and justice is upheld. The question today is not whether democracy failed us. The question is whether we are doing enough to make democracy work. The democratic movements were driven by a powerful dream: a nation where power serves people, not the other way around. That dream has not failed but it has been delayed, diluted, and distracted. 

The struggle movement against the Rana system and later authoritarian tendencies was ultimately a struggle for a better nation, not just against the rulers or leaders. If democracy fails to improve the system, create opportunities and restore hope, then we are not honoring that sacrifice.  The future of democracy will not be decided only in various political parties, provincial assemblies, parliament or by the central government; it will be decided in how deeply democratic values and ideologies take root in the minds of the people reclaiming democracy as a shared national responsibility rooted in development, justice and collective purpose, not merely in political change. True patriotism lies not only in celebrating achievements but also in working tirelessly to improve the country. 

(Aditya Tiwari is a Kathmandu-based writer and Yuwaditya N. Tiwari is a media professional.)