A phrase is very popular in politics these days. That is - 'strong and stable government'. Be it at a wedding or a banquet, in a cafe or in a pub, when meeting the rulers, they proudly proclaim the main purpose of the current ruling coalition.

They speak as if they have just discovered the formula of power. Or, they have discovered the sure weapon of country development. In conversation, they pronounce the three words within 'strong and stable government' as if these are their most cherished words. Dearer than the name of a beloved. Or, more wonderful than the bhajan of Khwamit that he sings. When a ruler is seen making speeches surrounded by his servants, it seems that he is acting as a 'strong and stable government'. He who slightly opens his mouth, rolls his tongue, stretches his eyes and says to his servants - 'Remember three words, boy, steady, strong and government. If you remember this much, your politics will be successful.'' He pronounces these words as if the villain of a 'C grade' movie is reciting memorized dialogues to confuse the audience. 

I say that when I hear the slogan of 'strong and stable government' from the mouth of those in power, it is the same. It happens that someone has added lemon juice to the milk tea. Whenever someone utters these words, I instinctively turn to look at their faces. A crooked shadow of power smiling carelessly everywhere. But for the Congress and the Amalayan (except for a few), it has become a phrase dearer than the socialism and democracy they have historically preached. And, which they are blessed to repeat over and over again. 

But my point is the opposite. I think the ruling party is running a nursery of misinformation. In which there is mainly confusion, disorientation and lust for power. The confusion is because they (UML and Congress) are forgetting that UML and Congress are the main contenders in the coming elections. Directionlessness Because, those in power want a strong government. They have no attachment to democracy. Sattamoh Therefore, this phrase has no meaning other than arithmetic. Such arithmetic, which opens the door to form a right and strong government from the coalition itself, but does not contribute to the advancement of politics. In this way, this statement is undemocratic in itself and one that will be burdened by politics itself in the future. The question may arise, then, don't we need a stable government? Or, don't we need a strong government? Let's ask the opposite here, what is the meaning of the stability that comes by making unnatural alliances (weakening democracy)? What is the meaning of inertia without results? Therefore, stability is the trick of power politics. This is not democratic commentary. 

Actually, today we need a dynamic, effective and liberal government, not a static government. The government is not strong, citizens (democracy) need to be strong. The stable government was run by the Rana and Shahs yesterday. Or, the stable government is Putin's in Russia, or Kim Jong Un's in North Korea. Because democracy does not require a stable and strong government, but a dynamic, just and liberal government. In a democracy, not the government, but the citizen should be strong. This is such a contradictory commentary that seems simple, whose destination is different and the political school that builds it is different. 

summary a 

Let us consider the question of stable government or effective government. Here, stable government means a situation in which a single party or coalition holds power for a long period of time. An effective government is a democratic, creative and just government capable of meeting the needs of the people. Let's think, how long the government lasts is that important? Is the work of the government important? Needless to say, stable government can (do) be the root. A dynamic government is like a river flowing and flowing. 

Now let's think about what we need? A solid, stable and stable government or a liberal, democratic, dynamic and soft government? Let's say, we need a stable government. But what if the government of the corrupt is stable? What happens if a dictatorial government becomes stable? 

People say that stability helps prevent the confusion and chaos that often occurs in politics. But this is misleading. Because democratic state structures, methods and systems prevent political confusion, chaos and instability, not government. So we are not looking for a stable government. Steady states, systems and structures are sought. We seek stability of order, responsive and effective government. We seek a democratic, inclusive and just government. Otherwise, what if the government is stable but ineffective? That doesn't work. But if the government is effective, stability naturally follows. Therefore, seeking the stability of the previous government by making secret and unnatural alliances is itself an apolitical and undemocratic task. 

Some people argue that stability is necessary for economic recovery. Some people seek stability for prosperity. Of course, consistency is essential. But stability does not mean stability of government. is the stability of the system. Stability of government does not ensure stability of methods, systems and methods. Otherwise, what happens if the system is weakened, but the government is stable? This is improving the economy. Killing the constitution and laws repeatedly but making the government stable will not bring results. Rule by ordinance but the government is stable, neither development nor prosperity will come. Forming a government by making an unnatural alliance and seeking the stability of such a government, will it save democracy? Instead it comes like that, party system. Instead it comes like that, autocracy. Let's not forget, development and prosperity are in mobility, not inertia. 

Therefore, the commentary on stability or stable government is a misleading commentary. This is the commentary of the military dictatorship, Jahannian power or dictatorial communists. Therefore, this commentary should not be promoted by democratic politics. Because, we need effective government. We need a future oriented, fresh and elected government. A government that ensures transparency, accountability and results in decisions. Which should guarantee institutional reform, independent judiciary, effective parliament and competent local government. Promotion of democratic policies is the need of the day. In fact, saying that we need a stable government by the big parties is only an opening of dictatorial psychology. This is political arrogance. We do not want egoistic politics and dictatorial stability. What we need is – rule of law, effective government, dynamic and inclusive structures.

Synopsis of two

Now there is another mantra repeated by the leaders of Congress and UML (with the exception of a few) - 'Strong government.' The question arises, should the government be strong in a democracy or should the citizens be strong? Or do we need a strong government or a strong citizen? Here I would like to remind you that, yesterday in history, we continuously struggled with the historical arrogance of power and governance. Not only us, but the human civilization participated in this struggle, which is still going on all over the world. Because, power (government) says I am big, strong and special. Politics is an epic story of the struggle of the people against this ruling ego. We have brought democracy by constantly fighting the power and ego of the government. For example, yesterday the Ranas were in this ego. They thought they were special. Their children are special. Their blood is special. Their caste, language, religion, gotra are all special. It is this arrogance that dominated dynastic power yesterday. Yesterday, the country, power, and government were all prisoners of that ego, so we have freed the country, power, and government from that ego. Yesterday, the government considered citizens as raiti or subjects, so we have struggled to make ourselves citizens. And that struggle established democracy. Which means, civil supremacy. 

But what is the opposite that today the famous leaders themselves are saying - strong government. What is a strong government? A strong government like Mr. 3? A strong government like King Mahendra? Are our leaders possessed by the ghost of Putin or Kim Jong? Otherwise, if the system changes but the ego of power (government) does not change, what is the meaning of bringing democracy? Still, if we want to establish a strong government that works for the citizens, what is the opposite way? Therefore, these days, it is not that the government should be strong, but the citizens should be strong. Because in a modern democracy, if the government becomes strong, it turns into an elected dictatorship. As a leader becomes strong, that leader becomes totalitarian. If the parties are not strong, it becomes a tyranny. If we want to strengthen democracy, not the government but the citizens should be strong. 

s certainly make it easier for a strong government to take decisions and implement them. However, there is also the risk of a strong government suppressing the voice of the people. For example, the regime of Vladimir Putin in Russia can be seen as a strong government. From the outside, with a strong government, everything seems stable and effective, but there is a danger that the government will seriously undermine civil liberties, freedom of the press, and human rights. When the government is strong, corruption can be strong. As a result, the strong government becomes a dictatorship to protect its empire of corruption. When government becomes too powerful, civil liberties can be at risk. A strong government tends to place itself above the citizens. For example, if we recall history, Adolf Hitler's rule in Germany was initially based on the faith of the people. He strengthened the government with slogans of economic reform and nationalism, but it later turned into a dictatorship. In the context of Nepal, the example of violation of democratic rights in the name of a strong government during the reign of King Gyanendra is still fresh. 

So the thing is, in a democracy, the strength of citizens is more important than the strength of the government. Because first citizens, then power. Citizens first, then the government. For example, Sweden, where the citizens are stronger than the government. Where the people are politically conscious, which forces the government to fulfill its legal, economic and social responsibilities. Because, if citizens are strong, they can question the representatives regularly. Can participate in policy making. They can ensure press freedom, rule of law and accountability. Having an independent judiciary, a competent parliament, a critical civil society and a free press means a strong citizenry. Which makes the government transparent and accountable. which makes the government liberal. We need a government that is not strong like iron, but water-tight and dynamic. And only democracy is effective. And only the citizens become stronger.