Enough with Ideology, Show Us the Results, The New Social Contract Demanded by Citizens Across South Asia
As Nepal heads to the polls this week, a fundamental shift is underway in the political consciousness of the nation. For decades, political legitimacy in Nepal, and across much of South Asia, has rested on the narrative of sacrifice—on the struggles for democracy, inclusion, and equality. Imprisonment, exile, and underground activism conferred a certain degree of moral authority and public trust upon a political class that could claim to have fought for the nation’s freedom. That history remains important, a foundational chapter in the national story. But it cannot, and should not, serve as a permanent justification for a stranglehold over state power. The citizens of Nepal, like those in India and elsewhere in the region, are sending a clear and unambiguous message: enough with the ideology, enough with the rhetoric of past glories, show us the results.
This demand reflects a deeper, structural shift in the relationship between the state and its citizens. Political legitimacy, as sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset and political scientist David Easton have theorized, rests not only on democratic ideals (value-based support) but also on governmental performance (performance-based support). Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party, which has governed almost continuously since 1955, illustrates this dynamic perfectly. Its decades-long dominance has rested in significant part on performance-based legitimacy, anchored in sustained economic growth and administrative competence. By that measure, Nepal, and indeed much of South Asia, may now be approaching an inflexion point. Legitimacy will increasingly have to be earned through results—through the delivery of basic services, the creation of jobs, and the efficient, fair, and predictable functioning of the state—not through past credentials, rhetorical allegiance to democracy, or geopolitical fearmongering about foreign interference.
This shift is already reshaping political conversation on the ground. For decades, political discourse across the region has leaned on familiar, comfortable themes: defending sovereignty against larger neighbours, resisting external influence, paying lip service to socialism or other unifying ideologies, and safeguarding the democratic gains of past struggles. While these narratives once unified the country and gave voice to popular aspirations, they now feel increasingly hollow and disconnected from citizens’ daily struggles and frustrations. Voters are less concerned with geopolitical rhetoric than with whether the state can deliver basic services efficiently. They are less impressed by speeches about past sacrifices than by the presence of a qualified teacher in their child’s classroom, a doctor in the local clinic, and a road that doesn’t wash away in the first monsoon rain. Continuing to recycle the same old playbook would be a grave political mistake. This shift does not indicate a rejection of the gains of yesteryears; it reflects the maturation of democratic expectations and the voters’ growing ability to see through the excuses that politicians continue to make for their incompetence and corruption.
On paper, Nepal has one of the more progressive governance frameworks in the region. Its federal structure, its provisions for the inclusion of marginalized communities, and its constitutional safeguards reflect decades of political struggle and institutional innovation. The issue has never been a lack of theoretical imagination. Instead, the persistent challenge has been the absence of a culture of renewal and the failure to institutionalize predictable governance processes. The gap between the promise of the constitution and the reality of daily life is the space where public trust erodes.
This demand for performance-based legitimacy is not unique to Nepal. Across the border in India, the same frustrations are boiling over, as evidenced by the letters to the editor in a recent edition of The Statesman. In Karnataka, job aspirants have taken to the streets in Dharwad, protesting against the Congress government’s failure to deliver on its electoral promises. Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s attempt to shift the blame for unfilled backlog posts to the previous BJP government has been met with skepticism. As one letter writer, N. Sadhasiva Reddy, points out, “The protesters are not demanding explanations about past failures, but implementation of the recruitment promises made by the ruling party during the last Assembly elections.” Months after assuming office, the government has struggled to translate its assurances into concrete appointments. Rising joblessness among educated youth is deepening frustration, and the inability of the state to either generate new employment opportunities or fill long-standing vacancies has intensified the anger. Blaming predecessors may offer temporary political cover, but it does nothing to address the immediate crisis confronting thousands of aspirants whose expectations were shaped by explicit electoral commitments. The voters are watching, and they are holding their leaders accountable for results, not excuses.
Another letter highlights a different facet of governmental performance: the state of public education. Anupam Neogi from Kolkata reacts with alarm to the news that the Centre has admitted in the Rajya Sabha to closing 18,727 government schools across the country in five years. Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav has attacked the Uttar Pradesh government, alleging a “conspiracy” to close 27,000 schools in the state under the guise of mergers. This is an extremely serious issue. Uttar Pradesh already has consistently low literacy rates. The closure of such a high number of government schools, which are often the only option for the poorest and most marginalized children, threatens to make the future of education in the state bleak. It is a decision that prioritizes accounting convenience over the fundamental right to education, and it will have generational consequences.
A third letter, from Jang Bahadur Singh in Jamshedpur, touches on the tension between individual autonomy and state control, specifically in the realm of marriage. The Gujarat government has proposed amendments to the Gujarat Marriage Registration Act, 2006, that would make parental consent mandatory for marriage registration, even for adults. While the government claims to be seeking public input, critics argue this is a mere ploy, and that such regulations are a direct attack on the constitutional rights of individuals, particularly women. Legal experts argue that making parental consent mandatory violates established court decisions which confirm that only the consent of the adult individuals is sufficient for marriage. They warn that these regulations will create legal hurdles, especially for inter-caste and inter-religious couples, and will fundamentally undermine women’s autonomy. This proposed law, rooted in a conservative ideology that seeks to police personal choices, is a classic example of a government prioritizing a narrow, value-based agenda over the fundamental rights and freedoms of its citizens. It is precisely the kind of ideological overreach that voters are increasingly rejecting in favour of a state that focuses on delivering results and protecting rights.
Taken together, these letters from across India paint a picture of a citizenry that is engaged, informed, and deeply frustrated. They are not demanding grand ideological victories. They are demanding that their governments perform the basic functions for which they were elected: to provide jobs, to educate children, and to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of all citizens, without exception. This is the new social contract. It is a contract based not on past sacrifices or rhetorical flourishes, but on present performance and future promise. The politicians and parties that fail to understand this, whether in Nepal, in Karnataka, in Uttar Pradesh, or in Gujarat, will find themselves on the wrong side of history. The voters have spoken. It is time to show them the results.
Questions and Answers
Q1: What is the central argument of the article about the changing nature of political legitimacy in South Asia?
A1: The article argues that political legitimacy is shifting from being based on past sacrifices and ideological struggles (“value-based support”) to being based on governmental performance (“performance-based support”) . Citizens are no longer satisfied with rhetoric; they demand tangible results like jobs, functional schools, and efficient delivery of basic services.
Q2: How does the example of Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party illustrate the concept of performance-based legitimacy?
A2: Japan’s LDP has governed almost continuously since 1955. Its long-term dominance has rested significantly on performance-based legitimacy, specifically its ability to deliver sustained economic growth and demonstrate high levels of administrative competence. This shows that a government can maintain power by consistently delivering results, not just by appealing to ideology.
Q3: What is the specific grievance of the job aspirants protesting in Karnataka, as highlighted in the letters to the editor?
A3: The protesters are not interested in the Chief Minister’s explanations about past failures of the previous government. Their grievance is that the current Congress government has failed to implement the recruitment promises it made during the election campaign. They are demanding concrete appointments, not excuses, highlighting a gap between electoral commitments and actual performance.
Q4: What concern is raised about the closure of government schools in Uttar Pradesh and across India?
A4: The closure of thousands of government schools (18,727 nationally, and allegedly 27,000 in UP) is seen as a threat to the future of education, especially for poor and marginalized children who depend on them. With literacy rates already low, closing schools is viewed as prioritizing administrative convenience over the fundamental right to education.
Q5: How does the proposed amendment to the Gujarat Marriage Registration Act conflict with constitutional rights, according to the letter writer?
A5: The proposed amendment would make parental consent mandatory for marriage registration, even for adults. Legal experts and the letter writer argue this violates established constitutional rights (Articles 21 and 25) which affirm that only the consent of the adult individuals is sufficient for marriage. It undermines individual autonomy, particularly for women and inter-caste couples, and represents an overreach of state power into personal lives.
