Anil Keshary Shah, Chairperson, Lead Nepal Inc.
Tokenism occurs when inclusion is treated as a symbol rather than a substance, when individuals from marginalised groups are placed in visible positions without being given real authority, influence or decision-making power. While such gestures may create the appearance of progress, they often fail to address deeper structural inequalities. Over time, tokenism exposes the gap between rhetoric and reality, gradually eroding public trust in institutions and governance.
Public confidence in authority is built on the belief that systems are fair, accountable and genuinely representative. When diversity is reduced to a checklist fulfilled through ceremonial appointments or limited participation, citizens begin to question institutional sincerity. Tokenism sends a subtle but powerful message: inclusion is cosmetic while real power remains concentrated among entrenched elites. This perception weakens institutional legitimacy and fuels cynicism toward political and administrative leadership.
Nepal’s post-conflict political transformation placed inclusion at the centre of state restructuring. Constitutional provisions, proportional representation, and quota systems were designed to address the long-standing exclusion of women, Dalits, Indigenous people, Madhesis, and marginalised regions. These measures have undoubtedly improved numerical representation across political bodies and the civil service. However, the distribution of power tells a more complex story. Leadership positions, policy influence and control over resources continues to be dominated by a narrow segment of society, raising concerns that inclusion often stops at visibility rather than empowerment.
This gap between representation and authority has wider social implications, particularly for younger citizens. One of the defining drivers of recent Gen Z-led movements in Nepal and globally has been frustration with symbolic politics. This generation has grown up in a digital, information-rich environment where contradictions between public messaging and institutional behaviour are quickly exposed. When leaders speak the language of inclusion, equity, and reform, yet fail to deliver meaningful change, Gen Z tends to respond with scepticism rather than patience.
For many young Nepalis, tokenism represents everything that feels outdated about governance: hierarchy without accountability, participation without influence, and promises without outcomes. This has contributed to declining trust in traditional political actors, growing demand for transparency, and a preference for issue-based engagement over party loyalty.
For Nepal, rebuilding trust requires moving beyond numbers to outcomes. Inclusive governance must ensure that representation comes with real decision-making power, institutional support, and accountability. For policymakers and business leaders alike, meaningful inclusion is no longer just a moral imperative; it is essential for social stability, economic confidence, and the credibility of authority in a changing generational landscape.
Avash Ghimire, Commentator, Host & Co-founder, Colors of the Game, Co-founder, WoodStock Furnitures Nepal
Tokenism has become one of the quietest but most damaging practices affecting public trust in authority and governance. On the surface, it looks progressive – appointments made in the name of inclusion, diversity or representation. But when these gestures lack real power, responsibility or long-term intent, people begin to see them for what they are: symbolic acts meant to manage perception rather than bring change.
In Nepal, where inclusion has been a central promise of post-conflict politics and federal restructuring, tokenism has had serious consequences. Representation of women, Dalits, Janajatis, Madhesis, and youth has increased numerically, but meaningful participation in decision-making often remains limited. When representatives are selected to “tick a box” rather than influence policy, the public quickly notices. This creates a gap between constitutional promises and lived reality.
The impact on public trust is significant. Citizens begin to question whether leaders genuinely care about inclusive governance or are merely using identity as a political shield. Tokenism fuels cynicism – people stop believing speeches, policies, and even genuine reforms because past experiences suggest that inclusion is performative. Over time, this weakens the legitimacy of institutions and deepens political apathy, especially among young people who already feel disconnected from power structures.
More dangerously, tokenism shifts accountability. When token representatives fail – often due to lack of authority – the blame is subtly transferred to the community they represent, reinforcing harmful stereotypes and further eroding trust.
True inclusion is not about visibility; it is about voice and influence. For public trust in governance to grow, authority must move beyond symbolic gestures and invest in structural change – where representation comes with power, responsibility, and respect. Until then, tokenism will continue to undermine faith in leadership and delay the democratic progress Nepal aspires to achieve.
Dr Mukund Raj Regmi, Prosthodontist, Kasthamandap Dental Pvt. Ltd, Guheswori Dental Multispeciality and Implant Hub, Implaesthetica
Racism, gender inequality and suppressing minorities have become major problems in our society. There are unfair differences in status, rights, opportunities or resources seen in areas like income, education, health and power. In this scenario and condition, tokenism brings a reduction in public trust due to inconsistencies between words and actions. Tokenism causes decreased cooperation, the rise of alternatives, increased protest and systemic instability.
There will be loss of trust in governance and authority. There will be anger and frustration as people will feel ignored, disrespected and used.
The declining engagement participation in local and community initiatives causes lower voter turnout, so it weakens democratic participation and accountability in the long term.
Tokenism means hiring one person of a different ethnicity or minority or culture or with a certain disability. And the majority of employees or groups often feel like this person has not earned the right to be there. When someone is chosen only to fill a quota, they might feel like their opinions or skills don’t really matter. So, people will have low self-esteem; they don’t have any input in their team… so the environment becomes toxic. And there are lots of issues that come hand in hand with being the only person that is different from other team members. It puts lots of pressure on the person you have hired to be the face of the entire group that they belong to. This causes anticipatory resignation.
As tokenist behaviour focuses on appearance, not solutions, it hinders the real progress of the company or country itself. Tokenism can make individual feel stressed and undervalued; as a result, it will affect whole society by distrust, division and lack of inclusion
In the long run tokenism will lead to failure of governance and authority.
Ajay Lensman, Managing Director, Print Express, Lensman Studio
Tokenism occurs in various kinds of activities. It could be at the workplace, in the media, in a political agenda, in educational institutions, or even in the activism itself. One of the biggest traits of tokenism is a “representation” of marginalised or under-represented people without providing adequate access or support to ensure the integration. For instance, a group of marginalised communities is invited to attend a “conference” but they are only included to enhance the image of the conference without valuing their contributions authentically.
When governance bodies use “symbolic representation” to mask a lack of actual influence or power redistribution, they lose social legitimacy. Tokenistic practices are often viewed as “smokescreens” that allow institutions to deflect criticism and avoid addressing systemic inequalities at the root. Communities witnessing repeated tokenism may develop “learnt helplessness”, leading to reduced voter turnout and decreased participation in local initiatives. Governance strategies
that rely on true partnership are linked to overall policy failures and a loss of faith in public decision-makers.
