In recent times, two 'citizen platforms' have been strongly opposed to the dictatorship. First, the 'massive citizen movement', which speaks of the need for a movement against tyranny. Second, the 'Citizens First Campaign', which put forward proposals for a political alternative to the end of dictatorship.

Both of them have a common understanding - 'If our democracy is to be preserved, the end of dictatorship is necessary. Otherwise, if the dictatorship continues to flourish like this, it will destroy the achievements, civic spirit and dreams of the people's movement. It will end democracy. And, the state itself will become corrupt, chaotic, intolerant and unjust.' 

What is leadership? Why is it necessary to end it? To understand dictatorship let's first look at some terminology and find the political meaning. Take the four political terms – monarchy, party, dictatorship and democracy. As everyone knows, monarchy means the rule of a king.

In such a regime, the king is the highest, there is no law. The king does not have to obey the constitution. A monarchy is a system of government where the country, state, government and citizens are all subordinate to the king. That is, in a monarchy, the sovereignty of the state and the source of state power are vested in the king.

In a party system, parties are at the head of state power. They sit on the constitution, laws and organs of state in such a way that they are the masters of all these. They think that the source of state power and state power lies in themselves. Therefore, they think that they are the power. Seen this way, partyism means party supremacy. 

Then what is the leadership? Netatantra means the supremacy of the leader. This is such a distorted state of state management, where there are special leaders at the head of the country, state, politics, politics and citizens. Those who do not have laws, not only rules, but mandates should not be obeyed.

A handful of leaders consider themselves to be privileged patrons and run rampant under the same guise. But democracy is a different and advanced system from monarchy, party and dictatorship. Where the citizens are at the top of the state and their sovereign power, dreams and opinions are the source of state governance. In other words, democracy means supremacy and sovereignty of the people.  Let's consider

, what is happening in Nepal now? It is clear that there is no monarchy. So now the king is not in a mood. Nothing happens today by the will of the king. Today, the king is not at the peak of power. Now we have a situation where the king himself has become a citizen. So it is not a monarchy. 

So what we are experiencing now, is it a party system? Or, one more thing can be added here, is multi-party system and multi-party system the same thing? Some people think that multi-party system and multi-party system are the same thing. They think that opposition to party system is opposition to multi-party system. In fact, this is very crude and superficial thinking. Because, there is a lot of difference between one-party system and multi-party system. There is so much difference, like the difference between party and partisanship. Like

, multi-party means - accepting the political presence and existence of more parties in the society. Multiparty means accepting political movements by parties. To understand, consider and (dis)accept the issues raised by the parties. In a pluralistic society like ours, citizens themselves are divided along many ideological and political lines, and parties are their organized representation. Or, citizens have many dreams and those dreams are expressed through different parties.

 In this sense, parties are political representatives of citizens. Parties stand in elections through their candidates, voters cast their votes based on party ideas, agendas and candidates. This is an important aspect of democratic politics. Therefore, it is clear that parties (multiple parties) are the driving force of democratic politics. They are and democracy is alive.

But accepting the existence of parties and accepting partisanship are different things. Here multiparty means 'political'. Party means 'governance' (political). When parties cross their political boundaries and start directly interfering with state power, then partisanship begins. Let us not forget that the 'political' presence of parties and the 'political' presence are different situations in themselves.

In a democracy, the political presence of parties is mandatory but government intervention is unacceptable. Because, in a democracy, government power should be in the hands of elected representatives (through citizens), not in the hands of parties. Therefore, opposition to partisanship does not favor independence. A democratic citizen should always stand in favor of multi-party system and against party system. 

Here, accepting the political existence of parties is accepting multiple parties. But when the parties go beyond their political role and appear in the role of state intervention then partisanship begins. Multiparty is a political thing. A party is a government (political) matter.

Multiparty means accepting the leadership of parties in politics. But partisanship means - the ruling power of the parties. A clean and vibrant democracy has multiple parties but no party system. Because people's representatives rule in democracy. But in a party system, the parties have control even over the people's representatives.  From a

point of view, partisanship mainly creates five political and governance crises. First, in a party system, elected representatives are not guided by public opinion, but by party decisions. Second, in a one-party system, the government is not directed by the people's representatives, but by the party system. Third, in a party system, party policy is more influential than government policy.

Fourth, in a party system, party decisions appear more effective than the decisions of elected representatives. And, fifth, in a party system, the state organs are controlled by the party. Partyism is a distorted form of democracy, where judges are appointed on the recommendation of the party. The party system assumes a constitutional role. In this way, in a party system, the voter only means to cast a vote, the people's representatives are accountable to the party and not to the voter. Clearly, the rule of people's representatives and the rule of the party is a big difference. And this difference is the difference between democracy and party system. 

Then, what is the leadership? A dictatorship is worse than a party. Where the leader is infinitely powerful and decisive. In a dictatorship, political organizations and state structures become puppets of the leader. What happens next? The leader turns out to be dictatorial, totalitarian and oppressive. His relationship with the citizens breaks down and he is surrounded by a handful of cronies and middlemen. From among those middlemen emerges a lumpen and shameless group that 'glorifies' the leader. Poets, artists and rappers emerge to sing the praises of the

leader (Bhat). After that, criticism, questions and discussions stop. The leader starts distributing tickets, political and constitutional appointments from his own pocket. Then the state falls at the feet of such and such a leader and is destroyed without knowing democracy. Dictatorship is such a perverse state of governance, from which unlimited abuse of power and authority begins. Corruption begins. And suddenly, states, politics, parties and systems all become corrupt, crippled and meaningless.

Then the policy and system debate ends and begins – the public discussion of the leader's superhumanity and miraculous personality. Then, the leader becomes God from man. The leader becomes powerful and his followers take him above the party, democracy, state structure, etc. and install him in the palace. In this way, democracy becomes shrunk into a dictatorship through a party system. In this way the party becomes a cult and the leader becomes the patron of a handful of middlemen. 

If you look at party democracy, dictatorship and democracy from the same indicator, there is a huge difference between them. In terms of power deposits, the source of state power in a democracy is the citizenry. In a party system, the source of state power is concentrated in the party, while in a dictatorship, it is in the leader. Democracy, especially through elected representatives, citizens

is a system for exercising your sovereign power. Through which citizens control the state. In a democracy, the sovereign power of citizens is the source of governance and no party or leader is above them. But in a party system, the source of power is the party and its workers.

Once the dictatorship is reached, it becomes narrower and only one (two) leaders become the absolute power of the state. In a democracy, the state is accountable to the citizens. In a party system, the state is responsible to the party. In a dictatorship, the state is accountable to the leader. In a democracy, the citizens' agenda becomes the state's agenda. In a party system, the agenda of the party prevails. And, in a dictatorship, the personal thoughts and dreams of the leader become the thoughts and dreams of the state.  Needless to say

, democracy is expansive, deep, comprehensive and participatory. But the party system is narrow. A dictatorship is more narrow and biased than a party. Likewise, in a democracy, questions and criticism are encouraged. In a partisan system, parties are above criticism. So the questions are planned by the parties themselves. In a

dictatorship, the leader is above questions and criticism. Obviously, democracy itself is a dynamic system because the dynamism of ordinary citizens gives it energy. But in a party system and a leadership system, the dynamics itself becomes captive to the selfishness and whims of a handful of people. Democracy is the noble expression of the dreams of citizens. But the party system and leadership is a contraction of it. 

In this way, the kind of government we are experiencing in the country (in the name of democracy) is a dictatorship (some parties and many leaders). Because, now all the parties and states of Nepal are sitting on the throne, but only a few powerful people.

Now the country is reeling in their share. Party, state, government and political structures all have tyranny. So it can be said that now we are in the worst state of democratic politics. In other words, what we are experiencing today is not democracy, it is dictatorship. Or gang rule. And, without ending it, we cannot achieve a dynamic, participatory and result-oriented democracy. 

So, what to do now? A strong movement for the end of dictatorship is the need of the day. But that movement is not and should not be a movement to change the face of the leader. That movement is a movement to change the face of politics. Who dares to simultaneously renew political ideas, agendas, organizations and culture. Such a movement, which cleans the state, politics and the party at once. Let's make politics so tight that in the future, the leadership will not be able to raise its head from anywhere. 

However, the thing to understand is that the dictatorship is very coercive. So it will not fall with a small plea. It doesn't get lost in polite talking and smiling and pleading. Therefore, three things must be done together to end the dictatorship. The new generation must revolt hard for the end of the dictatorship from within the first existing party.