On September 8, 2025, Nepal saw the biggest protest in decades, on account of social media being banned in the country. Consequently, the government collapsed, and the Parliament of Nepal essentially moved to Discord, where more than 100,000 citizens met in a virtual chat room to choose an interim leader to oversee elections scheduled for March 5, 2026. This resulted in Former Supreme Court justice Sushila S Karki being sworn in as Nepal’s interim Prime Minister on September 12, 2025.

These dramatic events force us to confront deeper questions: what is democracy when social media becomes central to political power? Can social media be considered a “fourth branch” of power? What are the risks and promises associated with using technology in government? How does this compare to something like the ancient Greek polis’s direct democracy? And how does Big Tech influence democracy – overtly and covertly?

With this post, I aim to explore how this event may influence democracy, and the broader political theory questions these developments provoke.

Discord as Parliament and social media as the fourth branch of power

Until 1990, Nepal had an absolute monarchy, which was overthrown by The People’s Movement, introducing a multiparty parliamentary democracy, but also leading to instability. Because Nepal’s median age is around 30, the culture is dominated by Gen Z (those born between 1997 and 2012), a generation that is made up of digital natives. Thus, when government tried to shut down social media platforms, it was widely seen as a threat to freedom of expression and access to information: things that the youth values significantly.

The election carried out on the gaming platform, Discord shows the power of social media in the democratic process quite clearly. Traditionally, we recognize three branches of government: the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary. The UN described media’s function as “disseminating information and ideas of public interest as it supports informed societies and democratic participation”. Indeed, being a “branch of power” implies that the media sets agendas (decides what issues are discussed), mobilizes people, influences outcomes and has recognized legitimacy. Of these criteria, the last one comes into question most: after all, not every citizen with the right to vote has access to the internet, and there are more fake social media profiles than real ones. This means that not all citizens can participate in elections, undermining public legitimacy. However, we must remember that Nepal only chose an interim leader, to avoid backsliding into anti-democratic patterns, with voting rights still being upheld.

Social media platforms may eventually become an “agora” of social decision-making – maybe not the outright fourth branch of power, but able to substitute the first, legislative branch, in times of crises. This function, however, may flow from a “fourth branch” function, serving as a watchdog over the original three branches and stepping in where necessary.

In addition to insufficient representation, rule of law is also brought into question in a “discord democracy”. Institutionalizing this kind of mobilization, and embedding them into legal and constitutional structures, is challenging, especially because there is a lot of misinformation and disinformation online. Platforms can be hijacked by private or non-state actors, who can fragment or polarize public discourse. Moreover, AI technology can be used to subconsciously nudge citizens into making uninformed or coerced decisions. Platforms’ algorithms also decide what content goes viral and what remains obscure, making it easy to manipulate the outcome of decisions. The accountability of voting is also called into question on online platforms, because there is no foolproof mechanism to oversee the process.

On Big Tech’s Politics

An essential facet of this story is that online social media platforms (such as Discord, TikTok, or Instagram) are owned by large tech companies. While our lives are increasingly shaped by these platforms, there are legal issues when it comes to private and public spheres interacting.

Who decides what content is allowed, what is banned, how moderation is done? When governments try to regulate these issues (in quite different ways), they interact with private entities (Big Tech), operated by a select few who makes decisions affecting entire nations – such as Elon Musk sending and revoking Starlink terminals from Ukraine at will. When tech companies make policy decisions on what speech to permit, and whether to comply with local regulations, they effectively exercise power over speech and political expression, not just facilitating but shaping public debate.

Can voting on Discord be considered direct democracy?

While there are numerous legitimacy and practicality questions associated with democracy exercised through social media, I cannot help but acknowledge that it could ideally fill the gap between direct and indirect elections.

In ancient Athens, direct democracy meant that eligible citizens met (in person) in assemblies, heard speeches, debated, voted, and made decisions themselves directly on laws and policies, not via representatives. There are certain parallels with what happened in Nepal: (a part of) the youth gathered via Discord, debated and eventually selected an interim leader themselves. However, there are important differences. While the Ancient Greek polis had legitimacy (even though only a subset of society had voting rights), Nepal’s Discord polls are mere informal recommendations, with formal constitutional authority remaining with institutional actors. Indeed, bureaucracy is necessary, because modern states are too large for citizens to gather – a thing that is made easier by using online media platforms or virtual reality tools to come together, if not physically, then through the internet.

Aristotle designated polity (polüteia) as the right kind of democracy: governed for the interests of all, not just the leadership. While that might be possible on a modern online platform (public, open group deliberation, and selecting leaders via collective decision), the system lacks formal institutions with legitimate authority.

One of the most vital questions of Nepal’s Discord parliament is whether other nations can follow its example, or even recognize the interim leader as someone with legitimacy, eventually accepting social media platforms as spheres of politics? How can platform-based decisions become state decisions? For example, if every citizen who can vote has a digital ID confirming their identity, and elections are held on a nationally owned and operated digital platform with constitutional rules and strict cybersecurity measures, can that system eventually replace elections? What would be the social ramifications of such reliance on internet access, digitalization, and trust in IT?

As it currently stands, internet access is uneven, and those without it would be excluded from politics. Even members of older generations, who are weaker at understanding digital literacy, online slang, or recognizing deepfakes, could be silenced or ignored in favor of younger people’s take on politics. There is also a fear of becoming increasingly environmentally destructive, as we rely more and more on LLMs and AI agents.

How voting and democracy may change globally

I have no fear of Discord democracy becoming widespread anytime soon, as institutionalization of digital councils, citizen assemblies, online voting or polling is unlikely to become embedded in constitutions. However, it is important to note that the power of digital communities is undeniable. Access to social media became so important that it is viewed by most of Gen Z as a fundamental right, and online communities will play an increasingly vital part in leadership selection, even if just temporarily. We are also seeing more “digitally enabled civic agencies,” where people can self-organize, deliberate, and decide. But technology is a double-edged sword: it amplifies voices but also creates polarization and echo chambers.

If social media is to be considered a new branch of power, it must come with the utmost responsibility, checks and balances, and inclusiveness in mind. Big Tech would undoubtedly be influential in such a world, but they must be balanced by public oversight, law, civil society, and transparency. Should voting – and Parliament itself – ever become digitally driven, we must pay attention to how legitimacy is built, and how permanence is assured.

Mónika Mercz JD is a visiting researcher at George Mason University in Washington D.C. She is completing her PhD studies in Law and Political Sciences at the Doctoral School of the Károli Gáspár University of the Reformed Church in Hungary. A graduate of the University of Miskolc with a degree in law, she specialized as an English legal translator and holds a degree in AI and Law from the University of Lisbon. She is a founding editor of Constitutional Discourse, leading the Privacy & Data Protection column.

Image Credit: Press Trust of India