[Part 16]Sushila Karki was chosen as Nepal’s first female Prime Minister through an unprecedented process heavily influenced by the country’s youth activists, particularly the Gen Z protesters. This selection did not follow traditional parliamentary election routes but instead involved an informal digital vote conducted on Discord, a popular online communication platform.Discord is a communication platform application used for sending text, voice, and video messages in real time. Originally created for gamers to communicate while playing games, Discord has now become popular among various communities and groups who want to interact online. This application can be used on various devices such as PCs, consoles, and smartphones, and can even be accessed through a browser. Besides communication, Discord also provides features for file sharing, creating private or public groups, and can be connected with other services like Twitch and Spotify. The platform also offers a paid version called Discord Nitro with additional features such as higher video quality and special emojis.Over 7,700 votes were cast in this online poll, with Karki receiving more than 62% of the support, making her the overwhelming favourite. This extraordinary election followed weeks of intense, youth-led protests against government corruption, nepotism, and social media bans. The protests caused widespread unrest, including violent clashes with government forces, resulting in over 50 casualties and significant damage to government buildings. The pressure from these protests forced the resignation of the then Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli.Sushila Karki, born on June 7, 1952, in Biratnagar, Nepal, is a significant figure in Nepalese politics and law. She made history as Nepal's first female Prime Minister, a position she assumed in September 2025 amid a period of intense political upheaval marked by mass youth-led protests against corruption. Before becoming Prime Minister, Karki was renowned for her legal career, serving as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Nepal from 2016 to 2017, also the first woman to occupy that role. She holds degrees in political science and law, having studied at Tribhuvan University and Banaras Hindu University. Karki's rise to leadership was supported notably by the Gen Z activists as a symbol of anti-corruption and justice-oriented governance in Nepal. Her government quickly took decisive steps, including the dissolution of the House of Representatives and preparing for new elections. She is married to Durga Prasad Subedi, with whom she has one son, and she has a background marked by activism, including imprisonment for her role in overthrowing the panchayat regime in the 1990 People's Movement. Her appointment as Prime Minister represents a notable milestone for women in Nepalese politics and a shift towards addressing longstanding corruption issues in the country.Following these events, discussions involving the President of Nepal, the army chief, and representatives of the protesters led to the formal appointment of Karki as interim Prime Minister. The oath-taking ceremony was administered by President Ram Chandra Paudel in a televised event on September 12, 2025, after which the parliament was dissolved. Karki was tasked with leading the country and organising new elections, which were scheduled for March 2026. Her appointment was widely seen as a compromise and a hopeful step toward political reform and anti-corruption governance in Nepal.From Cleopatra in Egypt, who deftly navigated diplomacy with the Roman Empire, to Joan of Arc leading French forces amidst the Hundred Years’ War, history reveals a recurring pattern: when the world descends into chaos, women do not appear as mere accessories—they emerge as architects of direction.In Indonesia, the legacy continues. Kartini wrote defiantly under the shadow of colonialism; Cut Nyak Dhien and Keumalahayati took up arms as their homeland was invaded; and S.K. Trimurti voiced the call for independence through both pen and microphone. Women have never been confined to moments of peace—they have often shone brightest in the eye of the storm.Now, Nepal pens a new chapter in that enduring chronicle. Sushila Karki, a 73-year-old grandmother and former Chief Justice, did not rise from political dynasties or party machinery. She rose from movement—from discontent—from the voices of Gen Z, weary of corruption and nepotism. As the nation faltered, parliament dissolved, and the former Prime Minister fled, Karki did not arrive as a saviour appointed by elites, but as the people’s choice—elected through Discord, a digital platform once reserved for gaming, now repurposed as a forum for political deliberation.Karki is not merely a symbol of female leadership in crisis. She is proof that women can serve as moral anchors when institutions collapse. Her ascent carries the weight of a long history of women who dared to challenge systems—from the courtroom to the digital commons. She is not simply an interim leader, but a manifestation of renewed hope: that justice may begin with voices long dismissed, and with a gender long sidelined. Nepal is rewriting the very definition of democracy. And once again, a woman stands at its centre—not as a spectator, but as its director.The dissolution of Nepal's parliament had a direct impact on the country's election process by officially triggering a timeline for new parliamentary elections. Following the appointment of Sushila Karki as the interim Prime Minister, the President of Nepal, Ram Chandra Paudel, dissolved the House of Representatives on September 12, 2025. Alongside this dissolution, the President announced that fresh general elections were scheduled to be held on March 5, 2026. This six-month transitional period under Karki's interim government is tasked with restoring order and preparing the country for these upcoming elections. The dissolution meant that the current parliament was effectively disbanded, and the elected representatives were no longer in power, making way for new elections to form a fresh government. While some major political parties and legal experts contested the constitutionality of the dissolution, arguing it violated democratic norms, the decision was largely seen as a response to the unprecedented civil unrest and demand for political reform sparked by youth-led anti-corruption protests. This process accelerated the electoral timeline and reinforced the urgency to hold elections that hopefully restore democratic governance and stability. It also put the interim government in charge of overseeing the smooth conduct of the elections and easing restrictions that were imposed during the protests."
In the future, it is unlikely that parliaments as institutions will become entirely obsolete, but their roles and how they operate may undergo significant transformation. Experts foresee that parliamentary systems will increasingly embrace digital technologies—such as e-Parliament systems—to improve efficiency, transparency, and citizen engagement. These changes aim to make parliaments more responsive by leveraging information and communication technologies, enabling legislators to perform their duties better and allowing greater public participation in the democratic process.However, alternative models and reforms are also being discussed, including semi-parliamentary systems that divide legislative functions to overcome issues inherent in traditional parliamentary setups. Some political theorists and activists have argued that traditional parliamentarianism is historically obsolete in some contexts, especially where democratic institutions are failing, but this usually implies reform rather than outright abolition.Overall, while the form and function of parliaments may evolve—potentially including digital transformation, hybrid legislative models, or modified governance structures—parliaments as central democratic institutions are expected to remain relevant for maintaining legitimacy, accountability, and collective decision-making in governments. So, the dissolution of parliament should not be misinterpreted as the complete abolition of parliament, but rather as a reset and update to the software with a newer paradigm.Digital technology can significantly transform and, to a degree, replace traditional parliamentary functions by optimising legislative processes and increasing public participation. One key aspect is the development of e-Parliament systems, which fully digitise the legislative workflow—from drafting bills, submitting amendments, and translating documents to voting and publishing outcomes. This shift reduces reliance on paper, streamlines communication among lawmakers, and ensures faster and more transparent documentation. Digital platforms facilitate real-time collaboration among members of parliament, enabling remote participation and reducing geographical and physical barriers. They also allow for digital voting systems, increasing efficiency and accountability. Importantly, these technologies boost citizen engagement by making legislative information more accessible and interactive, thus empowering the public to follow, comment, or even contribute to policy discussions online. Artificial intelligence (AI) and data analytics can assist with interpreting large volumes of legislative data, automating report generation, and predicting the impacts of proposed laws. Technologies like distributed ledgers (blockchain) can enhance the security and integrity of parliamentary processes. Moreover, digital transformation opens the door for more inclusive parliamentary representation, making it easier for people with disabilities or those living far away to take part as parliamentarians. While digital technologies optimize and partially replace manual parliamentary tasks, they generally complement rather than fully substitute the democratic deliberation, decision-making, and accountability functions that parliaments perform as institutions. Effective cybersecurity and data governance frameworks are essential to safeguard these digital parliamentary systems against misuse or interference.
The important lesson from the chaos in Nepal is that governments must identify and address the root causes of unrest to prevent violent conflicts and political crises. The violent protests in Nepal, which escalated due to issues like government corruption, economic hardship, social media bans, and the increasingly annoying flexing style of public officials, show that ignoring these underlying grievances can lead to turmoil, loss of lives, and even regime collapse. For Indonesia, this is a crucial warning that the government must not only respond to the symptoms of protests but also deeply explore and solve the structural problems, such as economic inequality, poor governance, social exclusion, and lack of public trust.Experts and observers emphasise that sustainable peace and stability require both top-down actions by the state to deliver good governance and bottom-up empowerment of society to hold the state accountable. This includes transparent democratic dialogue, protection of human rights, and addressing the social and economic needs of the population. Effective response mechanisms can involve commissions of inquiry, reforms targeted at problematic institutions, and inclusive policy-making processes. Failure to do so risks repeating cycles of unrest, violence, and political instability, as seen in recent crises.For Indonesian policymakers, the Nepal case underlines the urgency of preventing elite corruption, ensuring government transparency, maintaining inclusive economic growth, and enabling open communication channels with youth and civil society before conflicts escalate. And, be careful of stowaways who wanna stab you from your back.Back again to our topic.
Communism in practice has taken on very different forms depending on the political, cultural, and economic conditions of each country, even though all of them claimed to be inspired by Marxist principles. The Soviet Union under Vladimir Lenin and later Joseph Stalin attempted to build what they called a "dictatorship of the proletariat," but it quickly transformed into a highly centralised and authoritarian state. Factories, land, and resources were nationalised, but instead of producing the classless society Marx imagined, the Soviet model often created a new ruling elite within the Communist Party. As Richard Pipes explains in Communism: A History (2001, Modern Library), the Soviet experience became a model for other nations, but it also revealed the contradictions between Marxist ideals and political realities.In China, Mao Zedong adapted Marxism-Leninism to fit a largely agrarian society. Rather than focusing on industrial workers as Marx had envisioned, Mao mobilised the peasantry as the revolutionary class. Campaigns such as the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution attempted to transform Chinese society but often led to widespread suffering, famine, and political persecution. Maurice Meisner, in Mao’s China and After (1999, Free Press), points out that Mao’s version of Communism was less about faithfully applying Marx and more about reshaping Marxism into a Chinese revolutionary narrative.Meanwhile, in Cuba, Fidel Castro and Che Guevara used Marxist-Leninist rhetoric to justify their revolution against Batista in 1959, but their Communist project became deeply intertwined with Cold War geopolitics. Cuba’s alignment with the Soviet Union meant that its Communist experiment depended heavily on external support, raising questions about whether it was truly a self-sustained Marxist model or simply a pragmatic survival strategy. Samuel Farber, in Cuba Since the Revolution of 1959 (2011, Haymarket Books), argues that Cuban Communism was always more about maintaining political control than achieving Marx’s dream of a stateless and classless society.Thus, while Communism claims descent from Marxism, its practical embodiments have often been shaped by local contexts, personal leadership styles, and global pressures. What emerged in the twentieth century was less the realisation of Marx’s utopia and more a series of state projects that borrowed his language but pursued very different outcomes.Communism, in its strict sense, is rooted in the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, particularly in The Communist Manifesto (1848, London: Penguin Classics) and Das Kapital (1867, Hamburg: Otto Meissner Verlag). Marx never established communism as a ready-made system but rather as the final stage of historical materialism, where class struggle would eventually lead to a classless and stateless society. What later came to be known as “Marxism” was not only Marx’s ideas but also the interpretations and expansions made by Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and others. Hence, communism originates from Marx’s teachings, but Marxism is the broader body of thought developed from and around those teachings, sometimes going far beyond what Marx himself actually wrote.Karl Marx envisioned communism as the natural outcome of historical processes, where capitalism would eventually collapse under its own contradictions and give way to a stateless, classless society. In his theory, this was meant to be the end of history’s dialectical struggles, achieved almost organically as workers seized control of the means of production. However, Marx did not leave behind a detailed blueprint of how this society should function, and this gap opened the door for others to adapt his vision to their own political realities.Lenin, facing the conditions of Tsarist Russia, reinterpreted Marxism into what became known as Marxism–Leninism. He argued that the revolution could not simply wait for capitalism to collapse, but needed a disciplined vanguard party to lead the working class. This was a dramatic departure from Marx’s organic model, turning communism into a tightly controlled political project. Stalin later radicalised this framework, creating a centralised and authoritarian state in the name of socialism, which Marx himself would have found deeply contradictory, given his emphasis on the eventual “withering away of the state.”Mao Zedong, in China, pushed the reinterpretation even further by centring peasants, rather than industrial workers, as the revolutionary class. His adaptation of Marxism turned communism into a distinctly agrarian movement, driven more by cultural and political campaigns than by strict industrial economics. This again marked a major divergence from Marx, who had focused on capitalist industrial societies as the breeding ground for revolution.In short, Marx’s communism was an abstract destination, while Lenin, Stalin, and Mao transformed it into concrete—and often authoritarian—political systems. The communism of Marx was an idea; the communism of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao became regimes.Marx’s original idea of communism was supposed to mean the liberation of the working class, where workers would no longer be alienated from their labour and the fruits of production would belong collectively to society. In this vision, the end goal was human freedom, equality, and dignity, not the concentration of power in the hands of a few. Yet, when later regimes claimed to embody Marx’s communism, they often built systems that were the opposite of what he described.For example, in the Soviet Union under Stalin, the state became the new owner of production, but rather than empowering workers, it imposed rigid hierarchies, labour camps, and authoritarian surveillance. Marx had argued for the eventual “withering away” of the state, yet Stalin constructed one of the most centralised and oppressive states in modern history. Similarly, Mao’s China justified its radical cultural and political campaigns as being “faithful” to Marxist thought, but these often resulted in famine, purges, and widespread suffering—conditions that Marx would have considered antithetical to emancipation.What happened in practice was that Marx’s language was borrowed to legitimise the consolidation of power by political elites. Instead of abolishing class, they simply replaced old aristocracies and capitalists with new bureaucratic classes. This created a paradox: the rhetoric of communism promised freedom, but the reality often delivered repression.Marx had once imagined communism as the liberation of human beings from alienation and exploitation, a society in which equality and dignity would prevail. Yet, when later regimes attempted to bring his vision into reality, what emerged was often a nightmarish inversion of his ideals. Stéphane Courtois and his colleagues in The Black Book of Communism (1997, Harvard University Press) revealed with chilling detail how, instead of emancipation, communist states delivered terror, purges, and millions of deaths. Their conclusion was that Marxist language had been co-opted as a political mask, concealing authoritarianism beneath the rhetoric of liberation.Martin Malia, in his sweeping work The Soviet Tragedy: A History of Socialism in Russia (1994, Free Press), framed the story as one of betrayal and distortion. According to him, Marx’s theories, which were abstract and philosophical, became twisted once placed in the hands of Lenin and Stalin, who were faced with the urgency of survival in a hostile world. Rather than waiting for capitalism to collapse, they accelerated history through revolutionary force, but in doing so, created structures that had little to do with Marx’s original emancipatory project. What finally collapsed in 1991, Malia insists, was not Marx’s communism itself but the bureaucratic state system erected in his name.Sheila Fitzpatrick, in The Russian Revolution (2008, Oxford University Press), adds another dimension by exploring how Bolshevik leaders selectively appropriated Marx. They used his vocabulary to mobilise the masses, yet constantly adapted or even discarded his ideas when practical problems arose. For her, the revolution was not a faithful enactment of Marxist doctrine, but rather a pragmatic and authoritarian improvisation. The tragedy lay in the mismatch between utopian promises and the lived reality of rigid party discipline and control.Taken together, these accounts demonstrate the paradox at the heart of twentieth-century communism: a philosophy that promised freedom was repeatedly used to justify repression. Marx envisioned a world without oppression, but his name became attached to regimes that built new forms of domination. The result was a cruel irony: the man who wrote of human emancipation became the intellectual figurehead of some of the most authoritarian experiments in modern history.Why did Communism fail to survive more than Capitalism, even though it was initially touted as the future of the world?
Communism, though born from Marxist theory, has manifested in very different ways depending on who tried to apply it. In the Soviet Union, Lenin’s adaptation of Marxism sought to create what he termed a “dictatorship of the proletariat,” yet as Joseph Stalin consolidated power, this system turned into a rigid, centralised bureaucracy with its own elite. As Richard Pipes explains in Communism: A History (2001, Modern Library), the Soviet experiment illustrated both the ambition of Marx’s vision and its collapse into authoritarianism when faced with the realities of governing.In China, Mao Zedong reinterpreted Marxism-Leninism to suit a peasant-based society rather than an industrial one. Instead of the urban working class leading the revolution, Mao made the rural poor the driving force. His mass campaigns, such as the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, promised liberation but often resulted in famine, persecution, and widespread dislocation. Maurice Meisner, in Mao’s China and After: A History of the People’s Republic (1999, Free Press), stresses that Mao’s Communism was less about faithfully applying Marx and more about weaving Marxism into a uniquely Chinese revolutionary narrative.Cuba, under Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, offers another variation. Their revolution of 1959 used Marxist-Leninist language but quickly became entangled in Cold War geopolitics. Dependent on Soviet backing, Cuban Communism never fully achieved economic independence. Samuel Farber, in Cuba Since the Revolution of 1959: A Critical Assessment (2011, Haymarket Books), argues that Castro’s project prioritised regime survival and political control rather than realising Marx’s stateless, classless society.Thus, while Marxism provided the philosophical foundation, Communism in practice became deeply shaped by local circumstances, political leaders, and international pressures. What we saw in the twentieth century was not the utopian outcome Marx envisioned but a series of state-driven experiments that often distorted or abandoned his original ideals.So, why does Communism often collapse while Capitalism remains stronger?
In theory, Communism promised equality, solidarity, and the abolition of exploitation. Yet in practice, it often collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions. One major issue was economic inefficiency. Central planning, meant to replace the chaotic market system, struggled to allocate resources effectively. Shortages of basic goods became common, and innovation was stifled because there were no competitive pressures. Alec Nove, in The Economics of Feasible Socialism Revisited (1991, HarperCollins), explains that planned economies faced inherent limits, making them inflexible and unable to adapt to consumer needs.Another reason lies in political repression. To maintain control, Communist regimes frequently silenced dissent, censored information, and relied on surveillance. This created a climate of fear that eroded legitimacy. As Archie Brown notes in The Rise and Fall of Communism (2009, Ecco), authoritarianism was not just a feature but a structural necessity of Communist rule, because without coercion, the economic and political system could not be sustained.Global competition also exposed the weaknesses of Communism. The Cold War placed Communist states against the capitalist West, whose economies proved far more dynamic. The technological and consumer boom in the United States and Western Europe contrasted sharply with the stagnation of Eastern Bloc countries. Francis Fukuyama, in The End of History and the Last Man (1992, Free Press), famously argued that the fall of the Soviet Union symbolised the triumph of liberal capitalism as the dominant global order.By the late twentieth century, Communist systems crumbled in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, while China adopted market reforms under Deng Xiaoping, effectively blending capitalism with one-party rule. Meanwhile, capitalism, despite its flaws and crises, demonstrated resilience because it could adapt, innovate, and evolve. Eric Hobsbawm, in The Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century, 1914–1991 (1994, Michael Joseph), describes how the collapse of Communism marked the definitive end of the ideological struggle that had defined the century, leaving capitalism as the surviving paradigm.What are the weaknesses of capitalism itself—because, despite its victories, this system is also full of paradoxes?
Capitalism, despite its triumph over communism, is far from flawless. One of its greatest weaknesses is inequality. By rewarding those with capital and punishing those without, it naturally creates vast disparities of wealth and power. Thomas Piketty, in Capital in the Twenty-First Century (2014, Harvard University Press), demonstrates with historical data that wealth tends to accumulate faster than income grows, meaning the rich get richer while the poor struggle to catch up. This inequality is not a bug in the system but a structural outcome of how capitalism functions.Another weakness is its tendency towards boom and bust cycles. Because capitalism is driven by profit and competition, it frequently overheats, leading to speculative bubbles and devastating crashes. The Great Depression of the 1930s and the Global Financial Crisis of 2008 are reminders of how capitalism can spiral into chaos, wiping out livelihoods overnight. As Joseph Stiglitz explains in Freefall: America, Free Markets, and the Sinking of the World Economy (2010, W. W. Norton & Company), unregulated markets are prone to excess and often need state intervention to prevent collapse.Capitalism also commodifies nearly everything, including human life, nature, and even emotions. This relentless pursuit of profit can erode social bonds and destroy the environment. Naomi Klein, in This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate (2014, Simon & Schuster), argues that climate change is not merely an accident of industrial development but a direct consequence of capitalism’s insatiable appetite for growth and exploitation.Finally, capitalism’s cultural influence can be corrosive. It promotes consumerism as a way of life, equating happiness with possessions and status. This can create societies that are materially rich but spiritually impoverished, plagued by anxiety, alienation, and a constant sense of never having enough. Zygmunt Bauman, in Consuming Life (2007, Polity Press), notes that capitalism’s consumer culture traps people in an endless cycle of desire and dissatisfaction, undermining genuine human fulfilment.Is there a serious alternative to capitalism today, or is capitalism really humanity's “end game”?
After the collapse of communism in the late twentieth century, many thinkers claimed that capitalism had triumphed once and for all. Francis Fukuyama famously declared in The End of History and the Last Man (1992, Free Press) that liberal democracy combined with market capitalism represented the endpoint of ideological evolution. Yet three decades later, cracks in this narrative have grown too large to ignore. Rising inequality, climate catastrophe, and political instability reveal that capitalism may not be as eternal as once thought.One alternative discussed is democratic socialism. This system does not abolish private property or markets but seeks to restrain their excesses through welfare states, progressive taxation, and strong public services. The Nordic countries often serve as examples, blending capitalist dynamism with social protections. As Lane Kenworthy explains in Social Democratic Capitalism (2019, Oxford University Press), such models demonstrate that capitalism can be tamed without being destroyed, creating more equitable societies.Another emerging path is green economics, which directly challenges capitalism’s obsession with infinite growth. Advocates argue for a steady-state economy that prioritises ecological balance and human well-being over GDP expansion. Kate Raworth’s Doughnut Economics (2017, Chelsea Green Publishing) has gained international attention for offering a framework where humanity can thrive within environmental limits while ensuring social foundations are met.In addition, the rise of digital technology has sparked debates about post-capitalism. Paul Mason, in PostCapitalism: A Guide to Our Future (2015, Farrar, Straus and Giroux), argues that information technology erodes traditional capitalist structures because digital goods can be reproduced at near-zero cost, undermining scarcity and profit. This suggests that the future might not be about replacing capitalism in one dramatic revolution, but about watching it slowly evolve—or erode—into something new.That said, capitalism’s adaptability remains its greatest strength. It absorbs critique, incorporates reforms, and reinvents itself in response to crises. Whether through green markets, corporate social responsibility, or digital platforms, it constantly mutates to survive. As Wolfgang Streeck warns in How Will Capitalism End? (2016, Verso), capitalism may not be overthrown but may instead decay slowly, producing a prolonged era of instability rather than a clean break.
[Part 14]
