There is a fierce competition between the old and new parties in the upcoming House of Representatives elections. UML, which became the second largest party in the parliament in the 2079 elections, is struggling to preserve the old public opinion this time. However, UML General Secretary and Dang-2 candidate Shankar Pokharel claims that it will win more seats than in the previous elections. An edited excerpt of a conversation with UML General Secretary Pokharel by Kantipur's Ganga BC focusing on these issues:

What direction has the UML manifesto given?

The manifesto puts forward development ideas. However, there are many complaints that the manifesto has not been implemented in our country. However, we have not been able to enter into its main subject. The main challenge in implementing the manifesto is the lack of a single majority for any particular political party and the forced situation of cooperation between parties with different views when forming a government.

The manifestos of the parties are issued as a task to be done by a single-led government. When a coalition government is formed, there is a compulsion to compromise. That is why the manifesto has not been implemented effectively in our country. For development and prosperity, a basis must be prepared for the effective implementation of a party's policies and programs. Political stability is indispensable for that.

Strong political parties are needed for political stability. Nepal's political parties are relatively strong, but they are not decisive. Decisive political parties are formed through elections. In that sense, we have put forward the issue of building a decisive national force as an agenda. Which determines political stability. If there is political stability, there is nothing that cannot be done to implement the manifesto.

This time we have put forward issues that can be implemented in the manifesto. Some call the manifesto ambitious. If economic development accelerates, even ambitious things can be achieved. For example, when I was the Minister of Information and Communications, I showed progress exceeding the target of the Five-Year Plan in 20 months. On the other hand, when I was the Chief Minister of Lumbini Province, I set a standard in capital expenditure. When I reached my third term, I showed this by spending 100 percent on capital expenditure. On the issue of good governance, the two ministries I held also reached a zero-sum situation by the third year. If this administration can be operated in a systematic manner, it can be changed in three years.

What are the main features of the UML manifesto?

This time, the kind of dissatisfaction, anger, and frustration of the youth that was manifested in society also triggered a kind of geopolitical conflict. Anti-democratic forces also became active in it. The aspirations of the youth are on one side, and the destroyers are on the other, making the same movement 'confused'. The youth are in a state of pain when they oppose the destruction. The youth themselves are not seen to have done the work of destruction. The aspirations of the youth were not wrong, they were just looking for a better life. However, it is ironic that they are not able to realize that the wrong elements used them. Today, the youth are inclined towards 'populists' and 'anarchists'. In this, the populists and anarchists played a politics of hatred against the mainstream political parties. Our youth community was affected in some way or the other. We have tried to make the issue of mainstream political parties addressing the demands of the youth an important agenda in the manifesto.

On the other hand, after realizing that the urban middle class is trying to distance itself from mainstream politics, we have made it a topic of the manifesto to address their aspirations. After realizing that populists and anarchists have tried to create a lot of hatred and confusion among Nepalis living abroad, the manifesto has included the issue of respecting their contribution. Similarly, as a Communist Party, our economic and social agenda of how to connect the landless, squatters, working class, and farmers to the mainstream of the nation is our topic.

In the manifesto, we have analyzed and presented statistically how much change has occurred after the declaration of democracy in terms of the disappointment and frustration created among the people. Although the aspirations have not yet been fulfilled, we have been able to do a lot more work compared to yesterday. We should be proud of that.

Why has the UML left the issue of constitutional amendment this time?

We have done a lot in terms of good governance. We have talked about structural reform, which covers many issues. For structural reform, it is natural to reform the law. If necessary, the constitution itself should be reformed. The main question is reform. What is needed for reform is something that can be agreed upon after discussion between the parties.

It is said that the UML-led government caused great damage to the Gen-G movement and that is why a new force came to replace the UML.

The views are mainly divided on how to view the incidents of 23 and 24 Bhadra. Some are analyzing it as justified. However, we are analyzing it differently. We should respect the feelings of the youth involved in the movement, but we should oppose the conspiracies and destruction involved.

Especially, people associated with the Youth Council are in the news as Gen-G activists, people associated with the Barbara Foundation are becoming members of the cabinet, an organization like 'Hami Nepal' was established as a stakeholder of the movement. Their affiliation is seen in the 'Free Tibet' campaign and an organization called TOB is now seen as a kind of trained commando. The use of these things in the incidents of 23 and 24 Bhadra was not only a matter of protest against the closure of social media. It is confirmed that there was also a geopolitical conflict involved. Now a significant part of public opinion has accepted this truth. A part is not yet ready to accept it. Whoever is not ready to accept it is against the UML. Whoever is ready to accept it is in favor of the UML.

Is it said that the UML is feeling the impact of the Gen-G movement in the elections? The feelings of the youth involved in the movement should be respected, but the conspiracies and destructions involved in it should be opposed.

There is a group that considers the incidents of 23 and 24 Bhadra as a weakness of the state. Similarly, there is also public opinion that considers the incident as a conspiracy against the state. The first of these public opinions is naturally against the UML. This is a conspiracy against the state. It is a conspiracy against democracy. Those who feel that it is a maneuver of geopolitical conflict will support the UML. In that sense, the public opinion in favor of the UML stands in one place. The public opinion against it is divided into many groups. In terms of election results, the UML is in a favorable position compared to others.

Who is the main competitor of UML in this election?

The competition is based on the specific place. In most places, the Congress is seen as the main competitor. In some places, the National Independent Party is being analyzed as a competitor. In some areas, the Nepali Communist Party is also a competitor. This time, the influence of the parties seems to be very low. This time, public opinion seems to be swinging between 3 or 4 parties.

What will be the position of UML in this election?

This time, there will be progress compared to the past. I see a possibility of an increase in the number of seats compared to the 2079 election.

Will Chairman KP Oli win in Jhapa-5?

It seems that this time's election will be focused on Jhapa-5. UML is safe in a situation where political parties are contesting the election alone. What will happen if a power center 'polarizes' against UML? It is in its place . Parties are running around asking for votes in their favor . If that remains the case, Jhapa-5 seems safe for UML .

What is the situation in Dang-2, where you are a candidate ?

Even if the National Independent Party increases the vote by 10 percent, the result will not matter . UML is in a safe position there . 

What is the basis for your claim that foreign forces are involved in defeating UML ?

It was certainly not easy to reconcile Ravi Lamichhane and Balendra Shah . Because Ravi had come out of jail excited to become the Prime Minister . However, it should not be forgotten that he returned to jail again carrying a bag due to Balendra Shah's campaign . People with that level of connection are still running campaigns in the same party today . The pressure and influence of that kind of power center is visible in Nepali politics . It is difficult to assess how it will proceed now. But, right now, most parties are saying that they will go it alone. So far, the situation is favorable for the UML.

Why have the UML leaders confined themselves to their respective constituencies without holding a nationwide election meeting? Even if the National Independent Party increases its vote by 10 percent, the result will not matter.

In this election, we have become community-focused. There is an understanding that positive results can be achieved if the candidates go to the election focusing on the community. Secondly, since the digital campaign is the main thing, there is no point in spending time on other campaigns. We are ‘centralized’ in the election campaign policy. We have adopted a policy of ‘decentralization’ in action.

Questions have been raised about the transparency of election spending. How is UML raising election expenses?

The party provides institutional support to candidates from the center. We follow the election code of conduct. It is not possible to calculate the expenses incurred at the local level during elections. There is no practice of evaluating the volunteer service done by each worker on his/her part. However, we instruct the candidate's expenses to remain within the limits of the Election Commission. We support the candidate according to the party's financial strength. We have a part of the resources we have been receiving from the workers.

The issue of giving grants from the state treasury to political parties on the basis of mandate is being raised. What do you think?

This is necessary if we want to make democracy successful, strengthen it and lead society towards good governance. However, society is not looking at it positively. Giving grants to parties until public opinion is positive for it can create disappointment among the people.

You have said that there is a competition between parties that are ‘based on populism and agenda’. But, did they not seem to be in favor of listening to the rattan of the voter theory?

Populism does not have an agenda. It is just a matter of playing on the emotions of the people. Populism does not show the society any path. It does not take it to the destination. This is not only a matter of Nepal, populism is a temporary phenomenon all over the world. Populists do not want to come to the debate. Since they do not want to come to the debate, there is no question of being agenda-focused. A situation should be created between the major parties to move forward by having an agenda-focused debate. There should be policy competition between political parties. After the incidents of 23 and 24 Bhadra, new parties sprouted like mushrooms. They all aspire to populism as an electoral option. Those who are popular on social media all want to be leaders. The narrative that has been created that gaining popularity on social media is politics is wrong. Now we need to move towards sustainable governance. Why have both our neighbors made progress? Political stability is assured there. Xi Jinping in China and Narendra Modi in India are leading the government for the third term. The narrative that is being created that calls political parties old is completely wrong. Political parties are always being updated. What do you say about the accusation that the old parties have not done anything since 2046?

The ‘deep state conspiracy theory’ has created such a psychology in society. First of all, ‘conflict’ is created in the main organs of the state. An attempt is made to create a negative narrative against the established parties by influencing the mass media. आर्थिक अनुशासनका प्रश्नमा यिनीहरू खराब हुन् भन्ने भाष्य निर्माण गर्न खोजिन्छ । यो गर्न तथ्य प्रमाण केही जुटाउनु पर्दैन, आरोप लगाइदिए पुग्छ । समाजमा वैधानिक सत्ताभन्दा बाहिर शक्तिशाली समूह खडा गर्ने कोसिस गरिन्छ ।  राज्यका नीतिहरूमा हस्तक्षेप गर्ने शक्तिशाली समूह खडा गरिन्छ । उनीहरूलाई अन्तराष्ट्रिय पुरस्कारद्वारा प्रतिष्ठित बनाइन्छ । उनीहरूलाई ‘फन्डिङ’ गरेर समाजका सेवक र उद्धारकर्ताका रूपमा स्थापित गर्ने कोसिस हुन्छ । राज्यका सुरक्षा निकायलाई ‘प्यारालाइज’ गरिन्छ । सोसल मिडियाको प्रयोगद्वारा विद्रोहका लागि आव्हान गरिन्छ । सडकबाट कथित ‘कलर रेभोलुसन’ का नाममा सत्ता परिवर्तन गरिन्छ ।

दक्षिण एसियामा यस प्रकारको घटनाका शिकार तीनवटा मुलुक भए, श्रीलंका, बंगलादेश र नेपाल । दुनियामा धेरै मुलुकमा यस्तो अभ्यास भएको छ । पुँजीवादी साम्राज्यवादहरूले आफ्नो वर्चस्व कायम गर्ने नीतिअन्तर्गत यो पनि पर्छ । बंगलादेश र श्रीलंकामा चुनावका माध्यमबाट जनताले त्यो प्रवृतिलाई पराजित गरिसके । नेपालमा जनताको विवेकमाथिको एउटा परीक्षा जस्तो बन्न पुगेको छ ।

दलहरू सत्ताको खेलमा लागेकै कारण आमनागरिकमा निराशा त पैदा भएको हो नि ?

‘हङ् पार्लियामेन्ट’ हुने बित्तिकै सत्तामा पुग्न जो कोहिले कोसिस गर्छ । एकजना सांसद भएपछि मन्त्री हुने कुरालाई उसले उद्देश्य बनाउँछ । स्थायित्व हुन्थ्यो भने सक्षम मान्छेहरू नै मन्त्रिपरिषद्मा रहन्थे । स्थायित्वको आधार तयार हुन्थ्यो । अस्थिरता भैसकेपछि त हरेक व्यक्तिलाई मन्त्री हुनु परेको छ । मन्त्री हुनका लागि दलबदल गर्छन् । दलबदलले अस्थिरतालाई थप प्रवर्द्धन गर्छ । यो अवस्थामा सरकार परिवर्तन भैरहन्छ, मन्त्री परिवर्तन भैरहन्छन् । जुन कुरा विकास र समृद्धिका लागि गलत हो । राजनीतिक स्थायित्वका लागि कांग्रेस एमालेबीच गठबन्धन भयो । तर, त्यसका लागि सहज अवतरणचाहिँ हुन सकेन् । जो राजनीतिक अस्थिरतामा रमेका थिए, उनीहरूमा पैदा भएको निराशालाई पनि भूराजनीतिक द्वन्द्वका ‘प्लेयर’हरूले दुरूपयोग गरे । त्यो ‘डीप स्टेट’को ‘कन्सपेरेसी थ्योरी’अन्तर्गत जन्माइएको ‘पपुलिज्म एनार्किस्ट’को असन्तुष्ट पक्षसँग फ्युजन भइदियो ।  

देश १० वर्ष माओवादी द्वन्द्व रहृयो । ०६३ देखि ०७२ को समय संक्रमणमै बित्यो । यो समयलाई तपाईंले हटाइदिने हो भने दलहरूले शासन गरेको समय ०७२ देखि ०८२ हो । दलहरूले १२ वर्ष शासन गरे भन्नुपर्छ । त्यसैमा पनि पार्टीहरूमा फुट विभाजन आयो । सत्ता परिवर्तनका खेलहरू त्यसैभित्र भए । त्यस अर्थमा यहाँ १०–१२ वर्ष काम गरेका राजनीतिक दलहरू असान्दर्भिक हुने तर तर डेढ, दुई सय वर्ष पुराना दलहरू युरोप, अमेरिकामा सान्दर्भिक भइरहने तर्कसंगत होइन् । 

निर्वाचनको अन्तिम घडीमा पुराना दलका प्रमुख नेताहरूबीच तालमेको सम्भावना कति छ ?

मैले त त्यस्तो देख्या छैन । सुरुमा एकपटक हामी राष्ट्रिय सभा निर्वाचन सन्दर्भको तालमेलको छलफल गर्दा कांग्रेसका साथीहरूले नेपाली कम्युनिस्ट पार्टीसहित तालमेल गरौं भन्ने थियो । नेकपाको जति सामर्थ्य छ, त्योअनुसारको राष्ट्रिय सभामा प्रतिनिधित्व भइसकेको छ, त्यतिबेला एमाले र कांग्रेस मिल्दा पुग्छ भन्ने हाम्रो राय थियो । तर, कांग्रेसले नेपाली कम्युनिस्ट पार्टीसहित तालमेल गरौं भनेपछि हामीले सहमति पनि गर्‍यौं । पछि कांग्रेसभित्रै पनि आन्तरिक व्यवस्थापनमा जटिलता उत्पन्न भयो होला । नेकपाले पनि अब ३ सिटमा चित्त बुझाएन । त्यतिबेला प्रचण्डजीले ‘अहिले मात्रै होइन पछि पनि मुख्य नेताको हकमा सहमति गरेर जानुपर्छ’ भन्ने कुरा गर्नुभएको थियो । त्यसमा शेरबहादुर देउवाजीको पनि समर्थन थियो । त्यसपछि कांग्रेसभित्र परिस्थिति बदलियो । प्रचण्डजीको पार्टीभित्र पनि त्यही दबाब भयो होला । जतिबेला हामीले रुकुम पश्चिममा जनार्दन शर्मालाई सहयोग गर्ने कुरा गर्‍यौं । जनार्दनको सहमतिमा रूकुम पूर्वमा पनि प्रगतिशील लोकतान्त्रिक पार्टीको उम्मेदवारलाई समर्थन गर्ने कुरा भएछ । त्यसमा प्रचण्डजीले गुनासो गर्नुभयो । उहाँले ‘मेरैविरुद्धमा तालमेल भयो’ भन्ने कुरा गरेपछि ‘हाम्रो मनसाय त्यस्तो होइन’ भन्यौं । अनि आफ्नै उम्मेदवारलाई निरन्तरता दियौं ।