In Nepal's vibrant yet tumultuous political landscape, the notion of internal democracy within political parties is often heralded as a cornerstone of democratic governance. However, a closer examination reveals that this ideal is more myth than reality. While political parties may tout their commitment to democratic processes through conventions and internal elections, these mechanisms frequently serve as carefully choreographed spectacles, with outcomes predetermined by entrenched senior leaders and their loyal factions.

Moreover, the lack of space for young leaders to cultivate independent power bases or challenge the status quo through institutional channels further entrenches this undemocratic reality. Compounding these issues, Nepal's proportional representation system-designed to diversify and democratise politics-has paradoxically reinforced a gerontocratic stranglehold, enabling party elites to consolidate power and marginalise reformist voices, particularly those of the younger generation.

Nepal's major political parties, like the Nepali Congress, Communist Party of Nepal (UML) and Maoist Centre, project an image of internal democracy through conventions and elections, billed as opportunities for grassroots members to influence party direction. However, powerful cliques control resources and patronage, ensuring loyalists rise while silencing dissent. Grassroots influence is minimal, as the system prioritises allegiance over merit, turning elections into coronations. This stifles debate and innovation, disconnecting parties from Nepal's evolving electorate.

The lack of internal democracy in Nepal's political parties marginalises young leaders despite over 60 per cent of the population being under 35.

Dissenters are sidelined or co-opted, closing off avenues like elections or debates for change. This stifles innovation, leaving parties out of touch with youth priorities like unemployment, climate change and digital governance, threatening Nepal's democratic vitality. This exclusion has broader implications for Nepal's democracy. Without space for new ideas and leadership, political parties risk becoming relics, unable to adapt to the demands of a rapidly changing society.

Nepal's adoption of a proportional representation (PR) system in its 2008 Constituent Assembly elections was hailed as a progressive step towards inclusivity and diversity in politics. By allocating seats based on the share of votes received by parties, the system aimed to ensure representation for marginalised groups, including women, ethnic minorities and underrepresented regions. However, in practice, the PR system has inadvertently strengthened the grip of party leadership, reinforcing gerontocracy and undermining the very diversity it sought to promote.

The selection of candidates for PR seats lies entirely in the hands of party leaders, who wield centralised control over the process. Rather than using this power to elevate reformists or underrepresented voices, leaders often prioritise loyalists-frequently older, established figures who pose no threat to the status quo. Young leaders with independent streaks or reformist agendas are routinely overlooked, as their inclusion might disrupt the delicate balance of power within party hierarchies.

This dynamic has created a vicious cycle. The PR system, intended to democratise politics, has instead become a tool for entrenching the dominance of party elites. Loyalists rewarded with PR seats owe their positions to the leadership, ensuring their unwavering allegiance. Meanwhile, young reformists are left on the sidelines, their ambitions thwarted by a system prioritising compliance over competence.

Several steps are necessary to address this crisis. First, parties must commit to transparent and competitive internal elections, with independent oversight to prevent manipulation. This would create space for genuine debate and allow new leaders to emerge based on merit rather than patronage. Second, parties should establish mechanisms to empower young leaders, such as dedicated youth wings with real decision-making authority or quotas for younger candidates in leadership roles. These measures would ensure that the perspectives of Nepal's youth are integrated into party platforms and policies.

Finally, reforms to the PR system are essential. Decentralising candidate selection and introducing open nomination processes could reduce the stranglehold of party elites, enabling a broader range of voices-particularly those of young reformists-to gain representation. Such changes would align the system more closely with its original intent of fostering inclusivity and diversity.

The myth of internal democracy in Nepal's political parties reflects a deeper malaise in the country's democratic institutions. While conventions and elections may create the illusion of openness, they often perpetuate the dominance of senior leaders and their factions. Brimming with the potential to revitalise politics, young leaders are stifled by a system that rewards loyalty over innovation. Ironically, the proportional representation system, meant to diversify politics, has only deepened this gerontocratic hold.

If Nepal is to realise its democratic potential, its political parties must embrace genuine internal democracy. This means dismantling the structures that stifle competition, empowering young leaders and reforming systems like proportional representation to serve their intended purpose. Only then can Nepal's politics reflect the vibrancy and diversity of its people, ensuring a future where every voice-young or old-has a chance to shape the nation's destiny.

Kayastha holds a PhD degree in Journalism and Mass Communication