What’s in a word? Sometimes everything.

Take the distinction between the meaning of the words ‘election victory’ and ‘mandate’, for instance. As in, did the current governing party, the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), get an ‘election victory’ or did it receive a ‘mandate’ in the elections?

At first sight, this question may feel like nothing more than a ponderous inquiry of a person who has nothing else to do. After all, no matter which way you look at it, the RSP secured an overwhelming majority in the Parliament. Their majority is so large that they now govern as both the ruling party and the opposition.

This is not the first time in Nepal’s young democracy that a single political party has won a large majority of parliamentary seats in an election. However, in the past, parties have squandered these majorities. Instead of fostering improved governance or development, the only things ordinary people witnessed were political leaders and their associates getting richer while the system became more corrupt.

The costs of political failure are now exceedingly high. The RSP is more acutely aware of this than anyone else. They have already begun implementing policies and actions that are decisively and swiftly aiming to change the system, end corruption and improve people’s lives.

But this is exactly where the seemingly meaningless distinction between ‘election victory’ and ‘mandate’ becomes meaningful. The RSP’s ability to change the system, end corruption and improve people’s lives will depend not just on the policies they implement but on whether they approach them as if they had won an election victory or received a mandate.

The difference

A victory is when one side wins over another, much like in a match or a tournament. It can be achieved with big or small margins. Often, an election victory by a large margin is incorrectly regarded as a mandate, when in fact it is not.

A victory says nothing about how it was achieved. It is simply about a win and a loss. Someone must lose for someone else to win. A victory can result without the winner having done anything meaningful to win. In elections, a victory can occur when voters elect a candidate to reject all other candidates. The RSP’s victory was a rejection of all other parties.

A mandate received from an election, on the other hand, represents an affirmative choice that voters have made about the winning candidate or party. In this case, they are specifically selecting the winner, for whatever reason, and not merely because they are rejecting other candidates. In a mandate, the focus is on the winner, not on what the loser may have lacked.

While an election victory can be measured—the ballots are counted, and the highest vote tally wins—a mandate is a subjective assessment and requires interpretation. The RSP clearly won an election victory, but it is not clear that it received a mandate.

People voted for the RSP candidates in large numbers, mostly because they rejected all other options. Although the RSP did have a thoughtful election agenda, many voters considered how different, honest, young and high-energy the RSP candidates were.

Many of the RSP candidates barely spoke about the RSP’s 100-point election agenda. Balendra Shah, who was presented as the party’s candidate for prime minister in the elections, rarely spoke directly to people other than through social media. He always wore his dark glasses, toured the country, waved out to his adoring fans, communicated through social media and gave very few campaign speeches.

Restoring public trust

Parties that receive a mandate in an election immediately begin implementing their policies because they have already secured popular consensus for their vision. Conversely, parties that win an election victory, no matter how large their majority, must first build a broader consensus for their proposals. If they choose to simply ram their proposals through because they hold a majority in Parliament, they risk creating an unstable environment in which power becomes the ultimate game.

The RSP seems intent on delivering on its 100-point election agenda within the first 100 days. This is a false milestone that risks undermining the bigger changes it could achieve.

Consider, for example, the apology that Rabi Lamichhane, chairman of the RSP, made on behalf of the government to the Dalit and marginalised communities for the systemic exclusion they face. The apology was a landmark moment. It was one of the top 10 points on the RSP agenda, and the government may have been eager to get on with it.

But the apology was delivered without any meaningful dialogue within and outside Parliament. Although Lamichhane delivered an eloquent apology, the lack of broader consensus reduced an otherwise powerful moment in Nepal’s reckoning for marginalised people to a showcase lacking substance.

Dalit and marginalised communities would have been better served if the government had built the broader support and consensus to correct a deep historic flaw of exclusion and injustice.

The RSP believes that its core mission is to root out corruption from every inch of the system. And quite correctly so. The Gen Z movement that led to the elections and the RSP’s sweeping mandate is the direct result of widespread frustration with deep-rooted corruption, nepotism and cronyism.

The malaise of corruption that had gripped Nepal isn’t just because people had become greedy. It was because public trust and confidence in institutions, government and public systems had completely eroded. In such a situation, stable progress in Nepal will be impossible.

Good policies and effective implementation can help rebuild a strong enabling environment. But they alone cannot restore public trust in institutions, government and systems.

Arresting and charging people who may have indulged in corruption will not only spread fear among the previously corrupt brass but also significantly reduce corruption. But these punitive measures alone cannot restore public trust in institutions, government and public systems.

Forcing out squatters and illegal tenants from public lands will reassert the government’s claim over them, allowing for their proper development in the future. But these actions alone will not restore public trust in institutions, government and public systems.

These policy measures, and many others that the RSP are racing to implement, are all important and must be implemented. But they must also secure a broader consensus. Institutions that will implement these measures must be rebuilt, strengthened and empowered.

In Nepal, corruption can end only when people have strong trust and confidence in law, order and public institutions, and when they fear them. However, it is uncertain if all that people fear are Lamichhane and Shah.

The RSP could use its majority in Parliament from the election victory to pass necessary laws or even amend the constitution. But it must avoid the urge to mistake its election victory for a mandate and focus equally on rebuilding public trust in institutions, government and public systems.