The recent election came way earlier than expected. Former prime minister Sushila Karki deserves credit for securing a fresh mandate peacefully, even though it seemed highly unlikely in the immediate aftermath of the Gen Z protests. However, it’s one of the initial and easier tasks on the long road to democracy.

When a regime is toppled, democracy is expected to bear fruit. In reality, it can go either direction. Periodic elections don’t ensure democracy on their own, as seen in Russia, Venezuela and Singapore. Democracy can erode internally when elected leaders gradually weaken checks and balances and attack opponents, creating an uneven playing field. Political pluralism, institutional restraints, and uncertainty of power give life to democracy.

The real test of democracy starts the moment winners decide how to treat their opponents: Protect their future rights or crush them. Democratically elected leaders respect term limits, judicial autonomy, and legislative oversight rather than trying to capture them.

Democracy is built step by step over a long period of time. States sharing similar cultural values don’t necessarily abide by democratic norms. India and Pakistan were formed in 1947; however, their democratic journeys differ. While India is the most populous democracy, Pakistan has been plagued by military coups, a weak party system and an identity crisis. Although some states in India are criticised for having authoritarian enclaves, they continued colonial administrative institutions despite poverty. This helped democracy survive.

Tunisia and Egypt participated in the Arab Spring for regime change. While the Tunisians ended up with some democratic reforms, the Egyptians' joy was short-lived. The situation got worse in Egypt as a cohesive and economically entrenched military seized power as a result of elite polarisation. The Tunisian military refused to repress. Tunisian elites negotiated to reduce uncertainty and protect the civilian government.

Nepal is breathing a sigh of relief after the establishment of new political leadership. It has had enough of the old political parties, their inefficiency and corruption. The new government is expected to deliver good governance, stability and economic development.

Good governance, being essential, can mean many things. It can mean rule of law, fewer disruptions and protests, and decisions made without opposition getting in the way. .. There is a quiet shift in how good governance and stability have been framed lately. There is a growing belief that ‘good governance’ matters, and democracy has been taken for granted. Minendra Rijal, a Nepali Congress leader, observes that voters increasingly tie legitimacy to ‘the ability to deliver effective governance.’ When performance alone is considered, democracy is no longer defended. It is assumed. If the government tries to ensure good governance at the expense of democracy, that’s where the problem arises.

Outcomes matter, so do processes, if not more. It's not just about achieving economic development. It's about how we get there. Nepal’s new leadership seems too obsessed with the result. As Balendra Shah said in his election campaign, ‘A road that should be built in two years is not being built even in twenty years; our agenda is that it must be built in one and a half years. Whether by tying them to a tree, sleeping them on the road, or locking them in a cage, the road must be built!’ For citizens who are tired of inefficiency and bureaucratic delays, this can feel urgent. But for others, if efficiency is expected in this manner, ‘good governance’ can sound like authoritarianism.

Among countries that govern efficiently, many do so at the expense of freedom, equality and justice. They practice good governance too. Their pace of building infrastructure is unmatched. They have zero corruption. They ensure economic development. But they do so by restricting open competition and repressing dissent in any form. They don't risk being voted out. Dressed up like democracies, they are hollow at their core. Fast delivery is lucrative in a country like ours, tired of instability. But it comes with a cost. When power is concentrated in an individual or a group, there is no way for it to be peacefully handed over. It has to be snatched. Time and again, Nepali society has fought back for justice.

Power makes you look ahead, forgetting the past. Not long ago, Nepal was governed under an authoritarian regime. The monarchy promised order and delivered control. The Panchayat system promised unity and delivered exclusion. The appeal of fast governance, or a ‘strong hand’ for performance efficiency, can be dangerous. We need to be careful about what we wish for, because romanticising monarchy and normalising military influence do not help.

So, what is democracy for? Democracy is to make power accountable, limited, and legitimate. Accountability makes power reversible and protects those without power. Efficiency maximises output, but it also allows fewer checks, less debate, and limited scrutiny. Without any guardrails, democratic erosion starts to take shape. Democracy is slow and boring. Oftentimes, it's frustrating. However, democratic procedures must be protected. They force justification. They allow minorities and opposition voices to be heard. Most importantly, these delays of the democratic process often turn out to be a blessing in disguise. They allow time to catch irreversible mistakes.

Good governance matters. Corruption must be uprooted. The citizens should feel that service is delivered. The economy must grow, and people should get jobs. All these goals should be met within a democratic framework, not at its expense. Nobody should rule without constraints in the name of fast results. Without constraints, efficiency can justify unchecked power.

Nepal has taken a step forward towards democracy, and it should institutionalise a democratic culture in the country. Leadership requires patience and commitment to democratic values even during difficult times. Opposition forces may obstruct, but they must be accepted. Due processes must be followed. Electoral loss must be accepted. The urge for democracy should not be sidelined. It is the only system that allows a country to correct its course without falling apart. Nepal is not new to this. Nepali people have had multiple setbacks. Expectations are high, but that doesn’t mean bypassing the rules to get over the line. This window of opportunity has come with a challenge. Some may call it populism, but Nepali people were loud and clear in answering the question of who will govern. The remaining question is how.