Nepal's politics has lost its sense of direction. Over time, governance has been replaced by slogans, personalities, and short-term political survival. Populism has made noise more valuable than results, and performance more important than policy. This persists because the same pattern repeats every election. Many voters return to familiar parties and leaders despite repeated failure, not out of loyalty but out of frustration. When choices feel limited and expectations are low, habit replaces accountability. That resignation has allowed poor leadership to recycle itself. The consequences are visible. Unemployment remains high and young people continue to leave the country. Infrastructure develops slowly and selectively. Corruption survives changes in government. Most damaging is the lack of continuity. For more than two decades, Nepal has been governed by short-lived leaderships. Prime ministers rarely remain in office long enough to be judged on outcomes. Each departure comes with explanations, not results. Instability has become normal. It is used as an excuse for failure rather than treated as a problem that must be addressed. Leaders need time to govern, but that time must be matched with constant public scrutiny. This is where a live public debate among all prime ministerial contenders becomes essential. Nepal does not directly elect its prime minister, yet the person who holds the greatest executive power often assumes office without ever facing the public in a meaningful way. Decisions are shaped through party negotiations and closed-door alliances, leaving citizens to react rather than evaluate. A live debate creates a space where those seeking power must speak clearly, openly, and directly to the people. A debate forces comparison. It reveals who has concrete plans and who relies on vague promises. It exposes whether leaders understand unemployment, economic reform, infrastructure, and governance beyond slogans. When contenders stand side by side, rhetoric is tested, and credibility becomes visible. Those who resist public debates often argue that they are unnecessary or unsuited to Nepal's political culture. In reality, the only thing a debate disrupts is comfort. Leaders confident in their vision and record have nothing to fear from public questioning. The demand for deeper accountability is not new. The recent Gen-Z revolution have already pushed for structural reforms, including a directly-elected prime minister. While that demand has not been realised, the principle behind it remains clear, leadership must answer directly to the people. A live debate is the minimum expression of that principle. Refusing to debate is a choice, and it is a revealing on indirectly stating that one is not confident to lead our country. Nepal cannot afford to continue with politics built on habit and low expectations. Accountability must become unavoidable. A live prime ministerial debate is not a radical demand. It is a necessary step towards restoring seriousness/accountability to public life and leadership of our country. Acharya is currently reading at London School of Economics, Msc (Urbanisation and Development)