Lately, I've been seeing more and more people demanding a directly elected PM or President. I also see that the current government's constitutional amendment agenda includes proposals related to changing the executive system, and a lot of people seem to support that direction.

But it makes me wonder: How many people actually support it because they've studied how such a system works, and how many support it simply because it's coming from the government, party, or leader they voted for?

Or is this support mostly driven by years of frustration with coalition politics?

Those are very different reasons.

For years, I've been against the idea of a directly elected executive—not because I think our current parliamentary system is perfect, but because I don't think Nepal is institutionally ready for that much concentration of power.

A directly elected executive isn't automatically a better system. It depends on the country's institutions, political culture, and constitutional safeguards.

Do we honestly have those conditions in Nepal?  
We already have a culture of political hero worship. Every election cycle, social media turns someone into a national savior. A few months later, the same person becomes the biggest villain. We debate personalities more than policies. We defend leaders more than we defend institutions.

Even under our current parliamentary system, we've seen leaders attempt to stretch constitutional limits, weaken institutions, sideline Parliament, or portray criticism as being "against the nation." If this happens without a direct nationwide mandate, what happens when one person can say, "The people elected me directly."

People often say, "Coalition governments are unstable."  
I agree.  
  
But is the solution really to give even more power to one individual?  
Or should we first fix the reasons coalition governments keep failing—lack of internal party democracy, weak institutions, poor political accountability, and a political culture that treats leaders like gods instead of public servants?

Sometimes I feel like many of us don't critically evaluate constitutional proposals. If our preferred party supports something, we support it. If the opposing party proposes the exact same thing, we oppose it. That's not political awareness—that's political tribalism.

This isn't even about one government or one party. I've seen this mindset among supporters of old parties, new parties, monarchists, republicans—almost everyone. Too many of us have become supporters first and citizens second.

Before supporting or opposing such a fundamental constitutional change, shouldn't we ask ourselves a few basic questions?

* Have I actually studied how a directly elected executive works?
* Have I looked at both its advantages and its risks?
* Is Nepal institutionally ready for it?  Am I supporting this because I genuinely believe it's the best system, or simply because it's being proposed by the people I politically support?

Changing the executive system isn't like changing a government. It's changing the rules of the game for decades to come. So before we let frustration with coalition politics push us toward a completely different system, let's at least make sure we're making that decision through critical thinking—not blind hope, blind loyalty, or political frustration.

I'd genuinely like to hear from people who support a directly elected executive. What institutional safeguards do you think Nepal already has that would prevent the concentration of power in one individual?

Are we supporting a directly elected executive because we've studied it... or because we're frustrated?