Once upon a time, there was a famous saying in what is now known as the Ottoman Empire: A clown does not become king if he reaches the palace. Instead, the palace turns into a circus. When and by whom the Turks made this proverb, they are the ones who know.

 The proverb made for that is well suited in Nepal, so why should the Turks take charge of it ? Needless to say, those who came to power after many defeats have turned democracy itself into a 'circus fun'. When democracy turns into tyranny, then it is certain, the face of democracy looks so unsightly that, people start to think autocracy is better, democracy sucks . Even if it is not a

, why ? Those who have climbed up to the stage of democracy and are turning it into a circus have sold the illusion that it is democracy to their Ramita and have joined the ranks of the peasants who are used to trample on it.  The circus show and its henchmen together have snatched away democracy from the hands of the people and the people have become self-righteous. There is no other way to sell a glass of wine and a piece of half-cooked meat of an old buffalo once in five years, and to watch the ramitas shown by three pieces in turn for five years, and then the people will queue up and lash out at the small circus saying that they will no longer buy tickets for such a circus.

The pointless hero 1

Sisyphus is a mythical character in the Griselli myth . He was a clever king of Corinth in Greece. who was notorious for his cunning . He thought, I can kill everyone with my cleverness . In the course of scheming to kill others, he one day seduced Thanatos, the hero of death. Then many times bowed down to many. 

At the end, Sisyphus was cursed - to carry a large stone to the top of a mountain for eternity. However, as soon as you reach the top, every time the stone falls down by itself and again Sisyphus has to carry it to the top and this process continues. Thus, Sisyphus became a meaningless hero who keeps on doing the same meaningless work.

Nepali people seem like Sisyphus. Every time someone carries someone and takes them to Takura . If it is not possible to reach Takura, the hero (Shakti) who carries it to Takura by himself may wet his own back and reach the abyss by ejaculating. One after the other . One after another . If he said that he was going to come out fast, he would come out even more crazy. Brought democracy by throwing Rana. Brought democracy by throwing panchayat. Gyanendra Tantra was thrown away and the Republic was brought. Congress did not, UML . UML did not, Maoist . Maoists did not reach, Madheshists . Nobody happened, Ravi . Now even that was not enough, again Gyanendratantra . A few tricksters who make fools of the world one after the other by tricking, deceiving, and bending! Nepali society should be cursed!

Non-essential hero 2

There is another Sufi story based on the Griseli myth, which shows the thinking of the skilled industrialists of the industry of our people:

Once Nasruddin took his donkey and went to the forest to get firewood . When he returned after collecting firewood, he made a log of firewood and instead of placing it on the donkey's back, he placed it on his head and jumped on the donkey and returned home .

Seeing that, a stranger asked - Nasruddin! Why are you carrying that load of wood on your head and not on the back of a donkey? Hasn't it weighed on your head?

'No, no . Nothing has happened to me,' said Nasruddin, 'I am doing all this so that the donkey's load will be lightened.' Hearing this, his friend was shocked and said, 'I do not understand anything.' Nasruddin explained to his friend, 'The donkey is carrying me.' I am carrying firewood so that he is not burdened.'

The limit of the creativity shown by KP Sharma Oli, Sher Bahadur Deuba and Pushpa Kamal Dahal to show what they have done is the same, who does not care more about the people, just as the compassion shown by Nasruddin does not reduce the load on the donkey .

People disappeared from democracy

The Greek word 'demokratia' is formed from the combination of 'demos' (citizen) and 'kratos' (rule). The word was coined in Athens around the fifth century BC. But, earlier than in Athens, various primitive societies had been practicing their own original democracy for thousands of years. But in today's Nepal, "people" i.e. "citizen" is missing from democracy and managers of commission agents are taking turns in the name of citizens.

Today's democracy has turned into the welfare system of moneylenders. The majority of those who vote belong to the lower classes, and most of the elites who represent them are . Whose interests have the elites who have taken the vote of the working people advocated to protect ? Caste, gender, geography need participation to raise their voice but class does not need ?

In a society where caste, geography, and language are fighting for representation, the question of participation in governance has not been given a place till date. After watching this, you will know how, under the guise of fake comments, democracy has been snatched away from the hands of the majority poor class and is in the possession of a handful of "power elites"? Is this really a democracy? Is it a reformed 'elitist'?

Whatever caste or geography, there are 'privileged elites' ready to take advantage of it. After Madhesi quota Vinod Chowdhury, women quota Arju Rana, tribal quota Umesh Shrestha, proletariat quota Pushpa Kamal Dahals, how can the issue of class participation get sidetracked in the system of protecting the rights of the 'power elite'? If it is not a

, as soon as the question of participation in the parliament based on a person's profession, income and taxes paid to the state comes up, neither the new elites like Shalikram Jamkattel, Vishnu Rimal in the name of the workers, nor Pushpa Kamal, Khadga Prasad, who have not picked up the sunk that has fallen in the last fifty years, will be left to bake political bread in the name of the working proletariat .

because, democracy is not the only thing! It was not just the majority. It is also important who the government is in favor of. Whose is the majority? A majority of citizens or a majority of those who vote? Regardless of who has voted, the majority of the people of the party or the profiteering business houses that help the party to get a majority or a significant number of votes? Or a foreign power to attack from behind?

Is majority democracy? Is the majority always right? A vote was held on whether to keep the caste system in the country or not. The majority voted to keep the caste system? Do you accept it because there is a majority? Is majority opinion an unconditional feature in democracy? Is it only a matter of opinion or conscience? If there is conscience, how does it manifest itself in opinion? To coordinate it, many institutions are formed in democracy.

tat ultyai

Political democracy has come to us. However, democratic institutions that operate democracy, speed it up and address citizens' opinions have not been built or the existing institutions have not been democratized . Those who have been appointed on the basis of party affiliation in the institutions like the Court, the Election Commission, stood on the public platform and started to dare to openly teach the rest of the society the lesson of democracy .

Nepali society openly held a press conference saying that I became a member of parliament after paying so many crores and so many crores. The accused who have made MPs with such money shamelessly occupy the post of Prime Minister of the country in turn. Those who give houses to keep the party office become party leaders, MPs, ministers . Even in institutions like the National Bank, Human Rights Commission, Securities Board, Management Committee of Religious Temples, the practice of party participation and accepting it easily as the 'New Normal' has developed in our country. In the absence of democratization of

institutions and party collusion in such institutions weakens the trust of citizens in these institutions. When the trust of the citizens towards the institutions starts to fly and the personal tyranny of the leaders spreads a wave of discontent among the citizens, then a place in the consciousness of the individualistic system begins to be created among the citizens. After all, if there is no system and only the rulers of the delegations are to be considered, why should they be considered?

B. A person who is a spokesperson of a party, who has run for election from the party, cultivates public opinion about intellectual corruption in the public circle the day before, and by putting his neck inside the ruling party, he becomes the leader of the university the next day . The photo of a person who has improved his life by turning the pages of history and sociology and saying that he is running Ayurveda University, taking an oath with a shocking posture, is published in front of the ruler's mattress. After getting a

, the intellectual circles of Nepali society have been affected by the idea that they should eat anything and not leave it, so that if the government gives them an appointment, they even run to take the responsibility of the fire department . This is beyond my academic discipline, I don't think anything else would be more appropriate. Intellectual confusion has taken the form of an epidemic in Nepali society. Greed and tyranny of power has led to moral disintegration.

Such an intellectual business, which sells its mind for its own profit and not for the benefit of the society and the truth. Those who auction their supposed knowledge on the wheel of power and the powerful are the most despicable people in the society . George Orwell said - 'Telling the truth in times of deception is a revolutionary act.' But the greatest drought in our society today is truth-telling. 

C. Until the previous day, the character who has been promoting the democratization of the state components, the public morality and wisdom of intellectuals to the society resigns from the governor selection committee to become the governor himself and preaches to the society - 'This country is backward because it does not recognize diamonds.' The regrettable thing is that our society lacks even a single talo to cover its mouth like that.

With such an upheaval on the head, the song of democracy that is sung without a chorus is filled with the dignity of democracy or is it stripped away? Does it increase citizens' attraction to democracy or disgust ? And sitting on the branch of the same displeasure, the resurgents chant in the old phrase - 'The king is found in Chautari, the queen is found in Chautari.' Chautari has been massaged. Now you can find ex-girlfriends on the Instagram pages of discos and night clubs!

Autocracy is not an option. In a democracy, no matter how corrupt and evil the ruler is today, he can be replaced . No matter how evil a king is, he cannot be changed until he dies. In democracy, the individual is secondary. He comes, he goes . Today there is Oli, tomorrow worse Oli will come. But, they are not permanent . Gyanendra is in the monarchy today. Tomorrow there will be a worse Paras than him . Paras can't be changed like Oli can be changed if he doesn't like it. Oli is a stain on democracy. Paras is Kuldeep of monarchy . The will of Oli, Deuba, Dahal can be changed . Gyanendra, Paras's whim must be accepted silently, otherwise Praveen will become Gurung . Padam Thakurathi becomes . Oli, Deuba, Dahal can be said to be death-defying. 

Democracy is a different thing . Oli, Deuba, Dahal are not democracy. It is true that his incompetence has made democracy immobile. However, his disqualification is not the disqualification of democracy. A person who thinks he has merit can come forward . Oli, Dahal, Deuba became useless, became corrupt, became motionless . However, how can their alternative be Gnanendratantra, which has been created by the struggling history of Nepali society? More worthy, hard-working and conscious people than these worthless people will be their alternative . There may be a more dynamic party option than this . But, because these are corrupt, the monarchy can be an option ? 

Is our commitment to democracy to be democratic as long as Oli, Deuba, Dahal are okay, or to be monarchist? How can someone being good or bad undermine our understanding and commitment to democracy? Are we democratic for Oli, Deuba, Dahal? That democracy is our choice. The wrong elements who are benefiting under its cover will decide whether we are in favor of democracy or in favor of monarchy. That we are committed to democracy from consciousness, from our own understanding?

Are Oli, Deuba, Dahal democracy for us? As long as they are right, we are democratic or monarchist ? What kind of ideological bankruptcy and toppling is this? Why should the country not become a circus of clowns after the rulers, from intellectuals to the citizens, have mixed up their votes? Don't let the land of the land be done! You may understand that Nepali society is not the sorrow of the Nepali society, heavily viewed the