In the current volatile political landscape, populist politics has emerged as both a response to democratic failure and a source of new challenges. A basic principle of populism is that it constructs a commentary of the old against the new.

When traditional institutions fail to address problems of equality, corruption or cultural exclusion, populism presents itself as a kind of democratic warning. Populism is not just a style, it is a warning, a mirror of institutional failure. The

populist style often attempts to polarize politics by oversimplifying complex issues. This style creates slogans such as us and them, the people and the elite, the pure corrupt. Such language increases social polarization and tends to surface political debate.  According to

scholar Hans J. Mergenthau, politics is a power struggle, which must be conducted with logic and balance. But populism turns into mass reaction on the basis of popular discontent and it starts to break the logic and balance. If the

is viewed positively, it creates pressure for improvement within the organization. In some contexts, populism has been helpful in preventing serious rebellion against the system or institutional collapse. The example of Nepal is also closely related to the confirmation of this argument.

Another positive aspect of this is that it reduces the distance between rulers and citizens, makes the administration accountable and brings people's issues to the national agenda. Taking the example of America, the social justice issues raised by Bernie Sanders influenced the Democratic Party itself. Which forced mainstream leaders like Joe Biden to take a new policy.

But if this populism turns to a negative path, it becomes the cause of institutional decay in democracy. When populism transcends institutional boundaries and turns into emotional politics based on mere popularity, it can threaten democratic values ​​themselves. The regimes of leaders like Brazil's Bolsenaro or Philippines' Duterte provide good examples of how populism can turn into authoritarian tendencies.

Therefore, our aim should not only be to fight populism, but to listen to its signals. Its impact cannot be stopped without addressing the root causes of populism, such as economic inequality, corruption, institutional arrogance and social alienation, and the tendency to consistently fail one-man governments. Populism is neither the whole problem, nor is it the only solution. This is a symptom and also a warning. Which way it goes - renaissance or decline - depends on how we answer.

Reform with intelligence, modesty and commitment to the Constitution can pave the way for a renaissance, but if it turns into unbridled ambition, it can lead to an uncertain future. Populism within the

party 

populism is often analyzed in terms of national politics, but its stirrings can also be felt deeply within political parties. When the old and seemingly stable parties fail to change themselves over time or start to distance themselves from the social base and the party leadership remains self-centered, self-satisfied and only limited to status preservation, a new nature of conflict is introduced within the party. The distance between the

party and the people increases. At such a time, if the party leadership rejects all attempts at internal reform and ignores external public sentiments, then the party will gradually withdraw from the people's preferences. In a

party, inertia is seen, this condition means that the party is only stuck in the memory of old glory, ignorant of the current reality. At times, dissension within the party may lead to a split. The attraction among the youth wanes or groups seeking change may start a separate movement or leave the party. Similarly, the trust of the people decreases.

When people do not see change in the party, they may start looking for new alternative forces. Political power is not only sustained by the glory of history, it is sustained by people's support and understanding of reality.

Can populism revive the party? If this question is looked at in a balanced and positive way - yes, it can give. For example, to strengthen the democratic practice within the party, it can challenge the structure dependent on a single person or a few people. It can bring new policies, ideas and style of communicating with the younger generation. It can give the courage to hold the leadership accountable. Change is a natural law, everyone's desire.

How are these issues of change and reform raised? Is it for real conversion or are they raised as a tool to achieve personal ambitions? This is important. When leaders are in the opposition or in a position of irresponsibility, they raise many issues that seem sensitive to the public in the name of strengthening the organization, changing policies, etc. But when those same leaders are in charge, those issues disappear at the level of implementation. This means, it can be concluded that those issues were not raised for public interest, but only for personal aspirations and image building. 

When a person cannot succeed in the position or responsibility available within the party, then that person raises another topic by raising a new topic or changing the context. Such tendency weakens the institutional discipline and merit system.

Saying 'the institution did not do justice' where you have not reached and failing where you have the opportunity is tendency to blame others for your incompetence. This self-centered or person-centered thinking does not do the institution justice.

Populism in Congress

In recent days, the populist trend within the Congress party has become increasingly visible. The younger generation and some emerging leaders have been raising populist issues in the name of directly addressing the sentiments of activists, supporters and people.

Some of these issues are aimed at party reform while some issues are related to contemporary national political issues. The issues raised for reform within the party have ended with the acquisition of office. The issue raised nationally seems to challenge the original ideology of the party, especially the ideals and principles based on parliamentary democracy.

Congress believes in parliamentary democracy, where balance of power, institutional restraint and the rule of law are paramount. But recent populist leaders have started advocating for a directly elected chief executive. which facilitates the emergence of dominant leaders but may undermine institutional balance.

This thinking is rooted in communist strategy. Where 51 percent is ensured through majority. But the Congress has never been a majority party at that level – its average vote has historically been limited to 37-38 percent. Now, to increase from 37 to 51 percent of votes, the support of other powers is required as the status quo.

Where will it be fulfilled in the status quo or what is the plan to get new public support? What is the strategy to reawaken the broken public trust and connect the new generation to the party? What is the reform plan to infuse enthusiasm among party members and well-wishers? What is the basis of the belief that there is equal opportunity and justice in the party? Without entering into such matters, it cannot be believed that the language encouraging the move to the direct election system in Hachuwa is for the benefit of the party. It is necessary to amend the constitution of the

party as required. No one disagrees with this. Reforms to organize the general life system of the party can be wide-ranging. For this, intensive debate is needed within the party. But bringing the issue of amendment to the debate with the intention of changing the electoral system of the party just to organize some leaders and to become a leader cannot be considered as entering the root of the problem. The legislation has been pressed by the leadership. is broken The clutter is piled on top. There is an error in the behavior and practice of

leadership. But how reasonable is the attempt to find fault with the letter of the statute? Now there is factionalism in the party. There is an opinion that it will end when the president is elected by open voting from the general active members. Why are old active members in the

party not preferring to renew? How to add new members? When will it be added? When will the convention be held? Why is it not possible to have a convention in the fraternal organization that is the backbone of the party? Without looking for a proper answer, leaving the legal process in the name of popular reform, and starting to look for a leader through the approval of the crowd, it will not be a reform, but a new search for power. 

How confident can we be in the new possibility that BP ideas will be creatively used by voters unfamiliar with BP's image? This is considerable. There is and should be competition for policies, ideas and programs within the

party. Within the Democratic Party, ideas are not considered factions, but alternatives. The formation of a faction is a collective effort to aspire to power. The organization of thought chooses the path of purity. When a faction becomes powerful, it takes the form of gangs within the party. Gangs abandon party ideals and ideas.

Therefore, if leadership is selected based on Facebook likes, speaking skills or public influence instead of the tendency to look at the popularity of the crowd rather than the competition of ideas, theory, experience and contribution to the organization, there is a danger that people with long-term thinking will be left out over time.

If the party's internal election, strategy formulation, and discipline system are ignored without being aware of the possible results, ignoring the existing institutional process, it helps to increase chaos within the party. Building a personal brand in a

party is not the end of the group, but the rise of the group. With this, the leader starts putting pressure on the organization by forming factions. As a result, the party's unity and strategic ability decrease. Giving priority to people over ideas, instead of ideological debate, if only the leader's power, image and speech are considered important, it weakens the intellectual level of the party. When populism replaces introspection, the slogan of reform becomes a harbinger of self-destruction.

Therefore, some of the issues raised within the party based on populism can eventually go in the direction of hurting the democratic structure and stability of the party. In this situation, the question arises – is this campaign for the strengthening of Congress? Or just a strategy to gain personal popularity? Therefore, it is necessary to have a serious debate whether populism within the party is a weapon to reach the leadership or a formula to solve the problem. It is certainly not wrong to demand reform within the

party, to criticize the old ways or to raise the voice of the youth. But those demands should be within the party's ideas, ideals and system. Adopting populism in the name of reforms to bring about a situation where the party itself is damaged is neither a policy approach, nor a profitable effort for long-term politics.

Finally, populism is neither entirely harmful, nor is it always positive. It is an expression of people's discontent, it also tests the party's ideas, ideals and institutional values. The Congress should adopt a strategy of disciplined inclusion, not suppression of populist upsurges. Only if the demands of