Urban peacebuilding for democracy

Like many, my heart sank as I heard news of protesters being shot in Kathmandu. Just a week prior, I had been there discussing approaches to urban peacebuilding.

The signs of unrest were already visible: police in riot gear, rumours of growing protests, and conversations about corruption and democratic accountability.

Two years earlier, I had heard young people across Nepal raising their voices about unemployment, stale leadership, environmental challenges, LGBT rights, caste discrimination, and more. At that time, it felt hopeful as protest and dialogue are vital signs of democracy. But last month it was clear pressure was building.

What was not clear was just how close frustration and marginalisation were to a violent tipping point. In hindsight, there was space for dialogue and more constructive action on the part of political leaders to address frustration, but that opportunity was missed.

Nepal and Kathmandu now stand at a crossroads. Nearly two decades after the armed conflict, the country has made remarkable gains: a new Constitution, stronger democratic institutions, and more inclusive representation. Few post-war states have built participatory institutions as Nepal has. Yet sustaining democracy is not the same as transitioning to it.

Old challenges such as regional inequality, social marginalisation, economic precarity, and limits on free expression have not vanished. A new generation, especially GenZ, is demanding reforms. They are not rejecting democracy, they are calling for its fulfillment.

The question is not whether Nepal changes, but how and whether reforms can be rooted in sustainable, democratic institutions and more inclusive economic models.

UNDERLYING DRIVERS 

Kathmandu will need to play a central role in addressing underlying drivers of conflict while simultaneously navigating the pressures of rapid urbanisation: gentrification, loss of public space, and widening inequality. The ability to foster meaningful participation and greater equity in the city will play a pivotal role in shaping the success of Nepal’s democracy more broadly.

There are numerous examples of cities around the world that have enjoyed successes in dealing with these deep-rooted challenges. Colombia’s social urbanism in Medellín played a role in dramatically reducing homicide rates and social marginalization. 

In Porto Alegre, Brazil’s pioneering participatory budgeting model increased democratic participation, even helping to reduce infant mortality. Each demonstrates how inclusive urban governance can reduce structural violence and strengthen democratic legitimacy.

In Nepal one critical step would be to design an urban peacebuilding plan not as a narrow conflict-resolution tool, but as a framework for participatory democracy from the ground up. Too often, peacebuilding is treated as something for post-war transitions. In fact, it is essential to democratic resilience: building trust, analysing shared problems, and continuing to develop collective vision. And it must come in large part from within.

Nepal has already proven it can do that. Building on existing infrastructure an urban peace plan for Kathmandu could accelerate social repair, develop models of solidarity economics, and strengthen participatory governance. The key for this plan’s success is to create a local, accessible, place-based peace centres which bridges democratic dialogue that young people are leading online into offline settings where citizens of all backgrounds can engage.

There is already a foundation to build on. Each of Kathmandu’s 32 wards has a mediation centre aimed at resolving disputes locally, and women’s networks have been mobilised to support and strengthen these efforts. Peace centres can be developed to help take on the deeper structural challenges facing Nepal’s youth which the current mediation centres are not equipped to address.

Peace centres could grow to include ward level local peace councils (LPC) that actively foster connections and dialogue across generational, caste, ethnic, gender, and religious lines. Peace councils in this new context could be adapted to build on lessons learned about LPCs during the post war period and to address a new context.

That could include facilitating meaningful conversations about how government resources are utilised through participatory budgeting, legislative forum theater and other well established participatory mechanisms that move from consultation to active decision-making.

Importantly, they can also serve as hubs to facilitate experiments with economic self-reliance by providing resources to help facilitate planning and investment in cooperatively owned production, mutual aid, women’s enterprises, youth social enterprises and other systematically organised community-driven development approaches. This will help reduce exclusion that fuels anger.

This plan creates an important “in between space” between party politics and social media driven activism. Democracy does not require everyone to be a politician, but it does require that everyone have meaningful ways to shape public life and spaces conducive to doing so. 

This needs to be nurtured and Nepal already has the human capital to support community-led development, dialogue and participatory democracy. Accelerating education rooted in civic responsibility could link schools and communities, preparing a new generation of young people for leadership in democratic dialogue, and community level development planning.

At this crossroads, Kathmandu can become more than Nepal’s political capital. It can model how cities anchor peace, democracy, and justice in everyday life. The future of Nepal’s democracy depends not only on how it responds to moments of protest and uprising, but on how it builds everyday institutions that address the tensions that make political and economic frustration explode.

The key question is whether leaders and citizens alike are prepared to take this next step and have the support to do so; moving from fragile democracy to a resilient, participatory peace.

Arthur Romano, PhD, is a faculty member at George Mason University’s Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter School for Peace and Conflict Resolution, where he directs the Program on Urban Peacebuilding. His research and practice focus on urban peacebuilding, restorative justice and the design of city-wide learning systems for violence prevention.