The people have been overwhelmed by the drama of government change many times. With the change of the center, the provincial government will be changed whenever and almost all the parties are enjoying the same game, from conscious citizens to ordinary poor people, their own kind of anxiety has increased. For those who understand politics a little, there is concern about the negative impact of such incidents on the system.

But why is the main political party considered to be the bearer of change not interested in diagnosing such trends? It is difficult to find a solution without an answer to the question of what is the main reason for the change of government. 

In a multi-party system, there are all kinds of small parties and anyone can form a party because they have constitutional rights. However, only established personalities and ideas can survive the party. If the leader is not dynamic, the organization cannot run and if the idea (principle) is weak, the progress of such parties is impossible. Apart from the Nepali Congress, the theoretical basis of the parties is changing due to different backgrounds. Like: today's second and third party CPN (UML) and Maoist (Centre).

Some other parties are formed out of compulsion and necessity. The background and ideas of the Rashtriya Prajatantra Party are not compatible with other parties, because it disagrees with the democratic republic brought about by the people's movement and the commitment of the parties. On the one hand, it tries to impose the weakness of today's multi-party system on the republic, while on the other hand, it sees its solution in the monarchy. Even if it is considered a constitutional monarchy in the statement, finding the root of the problem solution in a strong king seems to be contradictory in terms of management. It says that if the monarchy turns a blind eye to the problem of party instability due to some constitutional and legal weaknesses of today, it will be a cure. 

The Communist Party has deviated from its old ideas and landed in today's multi-party parliamentary system to be relevant. On the issue of republicanism, republicanism is theoretically safe because all parties except RPP are in the same place and public awareness is also increasing. However, from the point of view of behavior and working style, the established democracy is being shaken by the attacks and counterattacks of these parties. Even though these trends seem to have strengthened anti-republicanism, they are not the decisive factor.

The future cannot be determined right now as the development of new parties also depends on ideas and top leadership. There is also no basis for a party to be uniformly approved by the people on the basis of fleeting events or signs. With few exceptions, these parties are obsessed with power by any means to gain power, thinking that staying in the government will protect their existence and they will be able to gather resources. Such attachment can be symbolic and if the government cannot work towards the people, the base of any party's popularity will be destroyed. 

The fact that a multi-party system will form a coalition government cannot be denied. Since there are many such governments in other countries, we have to look elsewhere for the solution to the abuse seen in Nepal. The first problem with us lies in the current election system. Although correct in principle, the 40 percent proportional system has been misused and has helped to increase instability. The leader has a lot of role in this, because Asepase got the chance because they were not nominated according to the constitution. They would be leader-oriented and play a role according to his aspirations. How it can be improved, it's time to get everyone's attention. There are many other inclusion options. 

The second problem is the role and principle of leadership. As long as the leader-centric situation remains and other party leaders are unable to play an effective role, there is a tradition of running the party at the behest of the leader. An effective role of the leader should always be expected but the leader should be clean, flexible and effective. Culture and influence are very necessary to run a more united government.  A third cause of

instability is the unbridled ambition of small party leaders. All of a sudden, when the competition to become the Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Prime Minister began, which parties and leaders are also in the business of forming a government. As such uncontrollable ambitions tend to destabilize the government and people's problems cannot be solved, it is becoming the basis for increasing public anger. No bill can be passed in the Parliament and the Parliament has only become a platform for speeches. Even when the tainted people are in the government, the prime minister has to protect them in order to preserve power. As the price of each parliament increases, the only job to maintain the government is all those who are prime ministers. No party leader is an exception. Even today's provincial politics is shameful. 

series like this is not only today. The unanimity government of the Nepali Congress formed according to the 2047 constitution could not survive due to the strife within its own party, and since no party had a majority, various types of government were used and governments were formed and collapsed again and again. King Gyanendra again took an active role and destroyed the constitution as Goman snake took the bait. This paved the way for the next movement, which came to be a democratic republic after the Maoist People's War became wider and clearer. Although the Maoist people's war grew based on the belief that it is not possible to build a country through a parliamentary system, its solution was found in the parliamentary system. Today all parties are playing it, but the game is getting dirty. The wave of instability that occurred under the first multi-party constitution has also been repeated in the republic. What has been proven is that the two-thirds, the majority anyway, the government has become unstable and public distrust has increased. Due to the self-interest of the leaders, the government of about two-thirds of the CPN could not run for the entire time. Blame it on the Republic or seriously look for a solution? 

The fourth aspect, we did not have the minimum political culture. Without this, democracy always fails, evidence of which can be found all over the world. In a developed democracy like the United States of America, the Trump trend is dominating the established system, and the scholars there are giving fatal signals and due to the pressure of populism, the validity of the system has started to be questioned. If the leader does not take care of the fact that the gap of culture and principle gives support to anarchy, the system will collapse. There is a lack of such culture in the leaders of Nepal, but self-centeredness and excessive attachment to power have added to the problem. That's why the American political scientist Minor Wiesner said about the politics of India - 'Too much politics, too little civic sense.' There is a feeling that there is a qualitative change in the debates of the Parliament and the role of the opposition. Another significant aspect can be considered the role of communication. Therefore, in the context of South Asian countries, communication is seen as an essential requirement to enhance Nepal's democracy. It has exposed many scams and corruption. By and large, newspapers, radio and television have been more effective in the campaign to hold politicians involved in

cases accountable. But social media has become somewhat chaotic, entrepreneurial in the business of turning moles into palms. Some are also playing a role as alternative communication. But many scandals exposed by the media seem to have been avoided by the political parties. Even though the leaders of the party unite to cover up many incidents, they are being exposed to the public and are gradually being devalued. They have contributed to destabilize politics on the pretext of hiding their heads. 

At the end, the commentary on the hand of foreign Shaktiratras to create unstable politics is also made. In some cases, these public perceptions have been correct. This is due to the geopolitics of Nepal and the weakness of Nepali politicians. Sometimes foreigners appear in the role of invited intervention because they are expected to help in times of crisis or conflict. It is natural. In 2007, 2046 and 2062/63, India and other liberal democracies have played a significant role. It is not that such practices do not exist in the world.