Last March 1st and 2nd, I participated in the literature festival held in Ilam. Literature is not my subject, but one cannot deviate from it. It is not different from society. It is a reflection of the society. The themes of the festival were diverse.

One topic was a discussion on 'Politics: Hope and Despair'. I was invited there as a citizen representative. Among the other speakers were Gagan Thapa of Nepali Congress, Narayankaji Shrestha of Maoist Center and Gokarn Bista of UML on behalf of political parties. That session was conducted by journalist Basant Basnet. There were some serious discussions about the current state of politics and the way forward.  I would like to enter the topic from some ideas and opinions raised during the

discussion. Gagan Thapa said that there is dissatisfaction among the people, but Kathmandu's comment that nothing happened is not correct. It is necessary to change the leadership structure in the party, I am committed to it. Narayankaji said, nothing can be done in the status quo, it should be dissolved and the previous stance of the Maoist party should be changed to a system of directly elected executive. And only progressive social transformation can be done. Gokarn Bista recited the progress achieved by Nepal citing human development data published by the United Nations Development Programme. I could not agree with them, I had a different opinion.  Basantji, the operator of

, also had a special question for me, what is the meaning of the 'end of Netaraj' raised by the civil movement now? I couldn't explain it in detail there due to time constraints. The broad civil movement has already made it clear through the statement about the 'end of Netaraj'. However, since I am one of the participants in making that concept, I think it is my job to think about it some more. 

First of all, let's clarify what is 'Netaraj'. At first glance, it may seem like an anomaly. Government is ruled by those who live in leadership, is there even a government without a leader? With us, in the name of democracy, be it a party or a government, there has been constant chaos under the leadership of a limited number of people, like the royal family. The party, parliament, and government of the same limited person, remaining absolute in qualities such as popularity, leadership skills, and moral conduct, remained everywhere. A kind of gang system (oligarchy) was established. Netaraj is referring to this wrong practice, not that the political leadership of the party is not needed. It's also a bit of a sarcastic expression. 

When we call for the end of Netaraj, we are not trying to make the leader unable to work by tying his hands and feet. Those who reach the leadership should have full freedom to choose and form their support team (team) in the party. There is no such team now, they are not allies, they are just enemies. As if the leader took out of his favorable pocket, making anyone as finance minister and foreign minister, our situation in both these areas has become very miserable. Due to the lack of leadership, the economy could not take the expected direction, nor could it get rid of the tyranny of its neighbors on the left and right.

Political parties are synonymous with democracy. It is he who connects citizens to the political system. Ensures their feelings, desires and participation. Purposeful transformation of society. The role of parties is indispensable in the political system we have adopted. The constitution itself has directed the presence of parties in elections, representation and government formation. The freedom to form and operate a party is considered a fundamental right. Politics does not work by banning parties.

But now the general public opinion is that whatever is wrong in the country, it is because of the political parties. If the media is considered as a representative platform of public opinion, the visible and audible expressions, sarcasm and criticism towards the party are not only negative but also negative. There is a situation where public opinion and party are not facing each other. So now, in the name of democracy, partisanship, tyranny, excessive partisanship prevailed. A common complaint is heard that citizens who do not join the party have no established qualifications, no recognition, and no public status.

We citizens are never against the party system. We are aware that there will not be a way for those who dream of driving the car of independence again.  Even within the

party, there are some stubborn grandparents, fathers and mothers, grandfathers and grandmothers who are called the main leaders and have strict control. A worker who can't keep them happy is disillusioned. The excesses of the old parties like the Congress and the Communists have not stopped, but the same authoritarian tone and behavior of the so-called new ones has become more pronounced. The old ones are used to listening and digesting public criticism, the new ones don't have that either. Citizens have started to be shocked by such behavior of the party. Because of the party, the democracy/republic has become discredited. 

Our constitution says that 'the statutes and regulations of political parties must be democratic'. This is democracy within the party. During every four-five years, the convention and the election of party officials and the formation and reorganization of committees are not only about accountability, transparency and dialogue with the civil society.

The presence and role of parties is indispensable to implement a democratic political system. But how to make them accountable and transparent is the most important question. Yes, the main culprits of today's situation are the party and its leadership. Throwing away the distortions of the party is not like saying that the baby is thrown away with the bath water. A very sensitive question also arose before us. We citizens are never against the party system. We are aware that there will not be a way for those who dream of driving the car of independence again. We have not forgotten that Gyanendra imposed autocratic power by using the weakness of the party and the unpopularity of the leadership. Now Jamaat Shahi, who is intolerant towards democracy, is daydreaming about restoring the royal autocracy. Citizens are not a chaotic bunch insensitive to history.

It is not that political parties are not concerned about the state of the country, sometimes they have expressed that concern. They are also trying to improve. But their vision revolves around the interests of a single power of their own dominance. This is a natural partisan trend. Democracy is needed for its control and balance. Democracy is a system of minimum agreement on some basic principles and procedures among parties with different philosophies and beliefs. If politics cannot be carried out in accordance with the people's expectations through the constitutional process among diverse views and perspectives, it will be corrupted into an individual system, dictatorship or gang system. Our situation now is that of corruption. Therefore, now the situation within the party is more important than the theory and system. There is a tendency for some people to dominate for life, to make their family or loyalists their successors after their remnants, Netaraj is that tendency. The culprits of this tendency are the top party leaders who are called leaders. It is imperative to remove them from politics to end their autocracy, the chaos they have brought. This is the main point of the end of Netaraj. The

question arises, if we throw away the current leader, there is no guarantee that the next one will not do the same again, the one who will come tomorrow will repeat the same thing again, is there a solution or a solution? Even if it is single formulated as the end of Netaraj, it is an overall vision of political reforms. It is multifaceted. This vision and campaign is not only focused on Congress, UML and Maoist leaders. It is about all political parties, new and old, which have reached the parliament and want to reach it after being integrated into the constitutional system. Other aspects of reform are also imperative, along with the process of displacing corrupt and decrepit leaders. If they are not practiced, it makes no difference whether or not the current so-called leader is removed. For this, it is necessary to establish the following in party politics.

In a democracy, the leader of the party must also be approved by the popular vote of the country. Political parties represent the wishes and aspirations of the people, reach the parliament and the government and address the means of the government's policies and programs. With that belief and faith, people accept them and vote in elections. Elections are controlled by the leader, the party is only a supporting medium. Just as a bus driver has to take the passengers to their desired destination, it is the job of a leader to take his team to the desired heights of victory. If the expected success is not achieved, the people should take a break from leadership because the people do not believe in their leadership skills. This is not a matter of law or party constitution, but a party culture that must be established through practice. This is the starting point of internal democracy in the party. 

Periodic elections are also the selection of political leadership to run the country. The party contesting the election should also clearly announce the name of the leader who will run the government tomorrow, i.e. the future prime minister, if his party wins. The hero of the election campaign on behalf of that party is also the same person. It is assumed that the leadership of the person who becomes the prime minister after the election is approved by the election and his leadership can also become strong and trustworthy. In the absence of such a tradition, the person who becomes the prime minister has always been weak and limited to the factional game. Being prime minister in a parliamentary system is the highest point of political popularity. The parties could not respect it with us.

A person who has become the prime minister becomes the leader of the opposition party in the parliament is an ejaculation of popularity. It is an insult to the position that he was the Prime Minister yesterday. The ex-prime ministers are shouting that my hunger has not been quenched, my desire has not been satisfied in our parliamentary elections. After the election, there is a clamor in the party to manage their affairs. There is vandalism, idolatry and division. This wrong practice must end. In countries practicing advanced democracies, including the United Kingdom, former prime ministers do not contest parliamentary elections. The new prime minister can ask the former prime minister for special responsibilities in the government if he sees fit. Remember, in Britain, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak gave former Prime Minister David Cameron the special responsibility of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Even though Cameron was a junior prime minister, he readily accepted the responsibility. This is the friendly (comrade) culture that needs to be developed within the party.