The general election has been pushed back almost two years as a result of the Gen-G movement. Sixty-eight parties are competing for the election on 21 Falgun.

 Some of them have participated in the elections alone, some have formed alliances. Parties have submitted 110 proportional and 165 direct candidates to the House of Representatives to the commission. With the completion of the candidacy registration process, the election code of conduct has also been implemented. What exactly is the code of conduct? What happens if we follow it? Will following it help the Election Commission to conduct the election or will it benefit the party, candidate, voter and the democratic governance system of the country as a whole? And, if so, how? With this in mind, how have parties, leaders, candidates and voters used it in the past? How did it help shape the narrative before Bhadra 23? This article has been prepared with similar experiences. 

In order to make the election transparent, clean and free from fraud, the Election Commission prepares and implements certain methods and standards with the aim of disciplining stakeholders at all levels and sections participating in the election. That is called the election code of conduct.

It is more targeted towards the citizens/voters, government agencies and supporting organizations conducting and supervising the election, as well as competing political parties and candidates. It includes prerequisites such as what to do, what to do and what not to do during the period of participation in the election process, campaigning, and the formation of the House of Representatives after the results are received.

The method of fundraising and mobilization is the main one. Its main purpose is that no external factor can influence the election or voters, they can express and give their votes to the candidate of their choice in a safe and secure manner, and only the elected representative in this way is the true representative of the people. The role of national/international observers who observe and evaluate whether this process is legal or not is equally important.

Based on the evaluation of the observers, the situation is whether the election is legal and fair, whether it is recognized or not, or whether its legitimacy is weakened or not.

Some people take the code of conduct lightly. One aspect of this is its weak implementation in the past. The Election Commission issues a document but there is no detailed evaluation of the implementation of the actions prohibited by that document, and there is no basis for encouragement and disincentives on that basis, so the public has the impression that it is nothing more than a kind of ritual.

Some people have questioned why Nepal has introduced a ritual concept like 'tying a cat during Shraddha' when such arrangements have been made in other democracies before elections. 

Nepali democracy has taught us through practice not to take the code of conduct only superficially as in the past. Let us look at the practices of Nepali democracy after 2048, focusing on frugality, a major aspect of the code of conduct. In the 2048 general election, many candidates did not have to spend money to win. One of the reasons for this is that there were few people with money, and even those who did did not dare to buy tickets for the sake of money.

Because the parties used to base their candidates on their principles and contributions to the organization. Since the villages had to be reached on foot, there was no crowd. Only a few workers and friends would accompany the candidates and help organize door-to-door visits, meetings, and public meetings. The election atmosphere in the villages remained calm. In the election competition between those who did not have money, who lived on the small help of their own friends, but were committed to the party's policies and organization, only one of them would win.

During the election campaign, guests who came to the door-to-door were served local drinks such as water, tea, milk, and curd-mohi according to the order. Similarly, they were welcomed with food and shelter. Locals would gather even at the places where they ate and stayed. That too became a part of the campaign. Abuses, false propaganda, etc. against the competitors were not heard. Since telephone facilities were available only in telecommunication offices and especially government offices, physical meetings and issue-based discussions took place between candidates and voters.

Even the workers of the competing party or voters who liked the candidate would attend and ask their thoughts and questions. Although the houses seemed divided on a somewhat theoretical and ideological basis, in reality, the elections at that time were a festival of the houses and neighborhoods that loved the candidate and them.

Occasional incidents of beatings, use of weapons, and violence were heard, but the participants were considered wrong and society had widespread sympathy for the victim. At that time, the victim side usually won.

As the method of wall writing and placing election symbols in houses increased and goods such as caps, T-shirts, jackets, and handkerchiefs were distributed, an environment for investment in politics gradually emerged and increased. As roads and communications, all types of vehicles, and hotels and restaurants became accessible and available to the general public, propaganda and mobilization in recent elections became very expensive.

As a result, the practice of buying and selling candidates for money, without limiting them to the criteria of being principled and moral-characteristic, having made long-term contributions to society/organization, and having earned public trust, has flourished. The trend has become for those who can collect and mobilize money to become candidates.

There are two sides to this, one is that with the economic system introduced in the name of economic liberalization, a section of society gained access to money that they had never imagined in history in the name of profit or commission.

And another is that due to the internal migration of a small group in the name of modernization and urbanization, the value of the land of those who were able to add and accumulate land on the basis of access suddenly skyrocketed, and they were counted among the newly wealthy overnight.

For those who had land that could be easily sold at a good price when they wanted, the property that was considered immovable yesterday suddenly became movable, so that they could sell it as much as they wanted whenever they wanted. When the group that can buy a ticket for a candidacy in an election suddenly increased, the comment that ‘eventually, money is needed to run a party and contest elections’ suddenly seems to have made its place in politics.

This series, which gradually started by giving tickets to a few ‘money-holders’, has created a situation where tickets are only given to those who have the money to contest elections today, or who have the ability to collect the necessary donations.

The ability to collect donations is also seen as an investment based on the possibility of reaching a good position tomorrow, so that in the future, the interest and perks of that investment can be recovered ‘doubled by day, quadrupled by night’.

There are also terrible aspects that appear to have been spent but are not recorded. It is said that the party has been supported so much, but there is no money in the party account, it is not visible and the treasurer is not aware of it. It is said that it has been borrowed from relatives, even those do not seem to have the ability to collect that much money.

The expenditure is calculated to be within the Election Commission's standards, but even looking at the external expenditure seen in the constituency, it cannot be assumed that the arrangements were made with that amount. In the last phase, the election has become a commentary on the 'country run by middlemen', and now it has even started to be called 'deep state' investment.

Maoist leader Ram Karki and Congress leader Shashank Koirala stated that they could not contest the election unless they could earn crores, which is also confirmed by research.

In the video of Deuba and Dahal burning money, one of the same people explained that it was normal for the party leadership to have a few crores of money in their house, while the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh leader said that 'poor people who do not have money do not do politics'.

There are dozens of such examples, which not only indicate that investment in politics and the skyrocketing expenditure in elections are beyond the expectations of the general public, but also make it clear that the state has become a mute spectator.

The question arises, how to view this? It may be a reference to everyone remaining silent that politics has now fallen into the hands of the rich and the wealthy. But the situation will not be limited to that, as 23 and 24 Bhadra have already said. One of the main factors behind the rebellion and violence that erupted on the streets at that time is the deteriorating politics of the country.

The tendency to try to practice money and access as two sides of the same coin has worked in making parties and leaders opaque and undemocratic in every context.

It can be said that the greed for political office and repeating it again and again has grown in Nepalis because of the chain of gaining access to resources after winning once and exploiting and reusing the same resources to further increase the capital by winning the next election.

The overnight party registration and bargaining, resignation, party entry and candidacy registration of ministers participating in the 'civilian government', who are not affiliated with any party and have a single mandate to complete the election with a commitment not to fight the election, raises the question of whether this kind of attraction to politics is really only for serving society and the nation? Or, is there no profession to serve society outside of politics? Is there no such possibility?

Are values ​​like patience, morality, commitment, sense of responsibility and accountability nothing in politics? Is politics and democracy just the technical use of rights like party registration, elections, competition, voting?

Having the understanding that this is the case and thus increasing opportunism is not a good sign for civilized politics. The continuation of such prevalent culture and character seems to prove the latest Gen-G movement useless. As a result, the federal democratic system established with countless dreams and sacrifices seems to be betrayed and the other side seems to get a chance.

It seems that we should learn something from the past experience. Once, even among those who won elections by influencing leaders or people with money/access, some have now accumulated the experience of being displaced because they created the mind/environment to enter politics with more money and support than them.

At least now those people are saying that – ‘It is wrong to enter politics by influencing others with money.’ Even if they win under the influence of money when they are alone, the number of those who lose the election and say ‘no more bass, no more flute’ is gradually increasing. Those who say that they did not get the ticket even after engaging in the ‘lobby’ of getting tickets without paying or not paying have come to the fore this time.

It seems that the situation has reached the point where, like in the past when the house/toll was divided on theoretical and ideological grounds, now the major part of the candidate’s money has to be invested in persuading or buying and mobilizing people from the party/group to which they got the ticket, rather than attracting the opposition’s votes.

It seems that the experiences of these and other characters who are tired of the past or are about to learn their lesson and move away from it will be successful in radically reforming the electoral process. If only the expenditure can be made economical, the desire of candidates from Dalits, women, Madhesis and other weak and marginalized sections who have been excluded for centuries will increase.

As a result, the voice that it is now unpopular will also be addressed. The mood of 'winning by spending money' between voters and candidates will also be transformed into a relationship of principled and true representatives. It will help newcomers who have the desire and plan to work for the people and get rid of the current cycle of voters who are not willing to leave politics due to the greed of wasting financial resources on the basis of their positions, even if they cannot do the social work they want.

In addition, money politics will have to be curbed to reduce the noise and violent activities caused by the misuse of alcohol, petrol and recharges that are easily bought from wealthy candidates.

For this, the importance of the election code of conduct has increased from yesterday. Since someone or the other must implement it until society itself is aware, there is no alternative to all-party cooperation and coordination in its strict implementation.

जेन–जी आन्दोलनका बेला रविको जेलमुक्ति भयो । गैरदलीय सरकार निर्माणमा बालेन्द्र शाहको भूमिका देखिएको थियो । अहिले उनी प्रधानमन्त्री उम्मेदवारका रूपमा रास्वपा प्रवेश गरेर निर्वाचनमा होमिएका छन् ।

यही बेला महान्यायाधिवक्ताको कार्यालयले रवि लामिछाने जोडिएको सहकारी ठगी सम्बन्धमा सम्पत्ति शुद्धीकरण र संगठित अपराधको मुद्दा फिर्ताको पहल लियो । अधिकांश मन्त्रीहरू राजीनामा दिएर रास्वपाकै उम्मेदवार बन्न गए ।

यस्ता विषयले यो सरकार नै रास्वपाको मात्रै रहेछ कि भन्ने सन्देह गराएको छ । रास्वपा नेता बालेन्द्र नेकपा (एमाले) अध्यक्ष केपी ओलीको प्रतिस्पर्धी बनेपछि जिल्ला तहका प्रहरी प्रमुखहरूको हेरफेरलाई लिएर उनले गरेको सार्वजनिक असन्तुष्टिले पनि त्यतै इंगित गर्छ । यसले सरकारलाई आफ्नो तटस्थता र निष्पक्षता पुष्टि गर्दै जाने चुनौती थपिएको छ ।

यसबीचमा उम्मेदवारी घोषणा वा दर्ताका क्रममा बाजागाजाको प्रयोग, दुईपक्षीय झडप, एक–अर्काविरुद्ध नाराबाजी अनि निकृष्ट गालीगलौज र अमूक व्यक्ति प्रधानमन्त्री हुने अवस्था नबने ‘आत्मदाह गर्ने’, अर्को उम्मेदवारले चुनाव जिते ‘आत्महत्या गर्ने’ जस्ता भड्काव र हिंसा–प्रेरित अभिव्यक्ति सार्वजनिक भएका छन् ।

मनोवैज्ञानिक आतंक मच्चाउने यस्ता क्रियाकलापसहित सूचना प्रविधिको प्रयोग र दुरुपयोग निर्वाचन व्यवस्थापन र अनुगमनको थप र गम्भीर चुनौती छ । अहिलेकै अवस्थामा आचारसंहिताविरुद्धका प्रशस्त कामकारबाही भएका छन्, जसमा निर्वाचन आयोगले सचेत गराउने त परै जाओस्, जे भइरहेको छ, गलत हो भनेर आफ्नो धारणासमेत सार्वजनिक गरेको छैन ।

मतपत्र च्यातेका, शतप्रतिशत मत परेका, आतंकको भरमा निर्वाचन जितेकाहरूलाई पनि मान्यता दिएको विगतसामु नयाँ परिस्थितिमा कसरी काम गर्ने भन्ने अर्को पाटो छ । स्थापितहरूलाई नयाँहरूले चुनौती दिइरहेको, प्रमुख दलका मुख्य नेतहरूकै बीचमा तीव्र प्रतिस्पर्धा चलिरहेको र इतिहासमै पहिलो पटक भावी प्रधानमन्त्रीको उम्मेदवार नै घोषणा गरेर दलहरू मैदानमा उत्रिरहेको अवस्थामा साम, दाम, दण्ड, भेद जस्ता सबैखाले हतकण्डाको प्रयोग हुन सक्ने भएकाले हिजोको सुरक्षा संवेदनशीलता र सुनिश्चितताको रणनीतिका सट्टा नवीन समस्यासँग मिल्दोजुल्दो र त्यसको सम्बोधन हुने गरी सोच र संरचनागत संशोधन जरुरी छ ।