The internal strife of the parties, the wave of mergers and splits has caused disappointment in the public mind. Many people also suspect that such incidents will not harm democracy itself. There are arguments that this will bring political instability and hinder the country's development. Are such activities happening only in Nepal or have such problems occurred in other countries that have embraced multi-party systems? Is it only the political background of Nepal that causes instability?

Team building is a collective effort of people who believe in the same ideas and principles for a specific purpose. Therefore, a common concept, political and operational unity is needed to form a party. We have also adopted the definition given by many western experts. Later, organization and discipline were added - to help run the organization.

In Britain, the party system became permanent in the process of work-action within the parliament. In particular, two parties, Conservative and Labor, have been dominant and both of them have reached the government as alternatives to each other. But now the situation has started to change and the other third party, Liberal, is also going to the government when it does not reach the majority. 

Other liberal democratic countries often have more than two parties, known as multiparty systems. As the parties operate in their own background, the order of practice will also be different . Party traditions in the United States are different. In fact, there are two parties, Republicans and Democrats, who can only be seen during elections and their role is limited to Congress.

In a parliamentary system, the party should always be active because their work, style and culture determine the stability of the government . In some cases, even if there is a majority government of the same party, the internal strife within the party, the fight of self-interest, the pride and stubbornness of the leader have led to the disintegration of the government . Not only countries like Nepal are victims of this disease, some developed countries have also become victims. 

Rather than the fear of the opposition, internal strife within the party, individualistic clashes, accusations of incompetence and accusations of corruption often lead to the dissolution of governments around the world

The events of the past few years in Britain have shown that there is also a wave of government formation and dissolution, and there is even an example of a government collapsing after 45 days. Since no party has a clear majority in Germany, a coalition government has been formed after months of negotiations with the opposition parties. Although the Liberal Democratic Party has always dominated and formed the government in Japan, the instability of the government is always visible. More than the fear of the opposition, internal strife within the party, individualistic clashes, accusations of incompetence and accusations of corruption have led to the collapse of governments all over the world. 

India is considered to be a laboratory of multi-party system. Because, there is a game of party splitting, splitting and one party joining another party to topple the government . But it has neither affected the stability of the system, nor stopped the pace of development. But when there is too much politics, the established values are decreasing and the political culture has been fragmented . Now, instead of playing a game of one party being committed to its principles and running the party and increasing its ability to form a government on its strength, it has split its own party and merged with another party to become the Prime Minister and Chief Minister. In India, the tradition of 'Aayaram Gayaram' has been going on for a long time. Its influence is also seen in Nepali politics. 

Although the game of formation and dissolution of many national and regional parties is going on in India, it is not found that anyone has raised questions on the established democracy or tried to defeat the system itself. There the system is safe even though the parties are unsafe for their own reasons . No party has discussed the option of a multi-party system . During the making of the constitution, there were debates on many aspects of the system and it was concluded that a presidential system is not possible for a country full of diversity like India, and a multi-party parliamentary system was adopted.

Some parties in Nepal argue that a directly elected presidential system is needed to eliminate political instability. But the political environment, the management threat it brings is not seen in a subtle way. The wave of populism in the world today and the movement of Jamaat, which is unable to analyze politics correctly, cannot be said as to what kind of person will be brought to power. Many countries have adopted a directly elected presidential system, but there are many examples of authoritarian tendencies prevailing and the system becoming unstable. In some countries, the people opposed such dictators and even displaced them.

Continuous democracy has not been practiced in Nepal for a long time. In the meantime, there were many ups and downs and the process of disintegrating the political culture continued . The path of politics opened by 2007 was collapsing and the royal culture became dominant and the culture of praise and chakadi increased . After the year 2017, from the center to the village, the rites of Ji-Hajuri, Buxios continued for 30 years . Meanwhile another Jhapali violent campaign to destroy the class enemy took place and later it merged with the parliamentary mainstream . Although the Maoist people's war lasted for 10 years, some strength was gained in the transformation of society, but this violent movement also ended in an agreement. Likewise, the Madhesh movement strongly brought the Madheshi identity into the mainstream of politics.

All these movements and the fight for democracy raised the level of awareness of the Nepali people, but there was no significant progress in building democratic culture. Therefore, even though Nepal is a republic today, there is a majority of mixed cultures, which has helped to keep the politics somewhat unstable. But now the majority of the people cannot be attracted to the monarchy or another dictatorial system instead of the republic . I don't think that democracy will be in danger because of disgust, anger, and disappointment towards the leader or the party. Even if they protest tomorrow, such protests will be aimed at the incompetence of the government, leaders or parties. Such movements will force the elected rulers to be more responsive and sensitive to the people. 

The declining popularity of political parties, internal strife, splits and mergers should be taken for granted in a multi-party system . Everyone has the right to start a party, but sustaining it depends on principles, leaders, and organization. Some parties begin to perish within a few years because such parties are either the product of immediate events, which automatically begin to weaken after those events begin to take place . A party is created to fulfill the aspirations of a particular person and the work and style of such a person starts to be ridiculed. But some parties can last for a long time because those parties have the ability to make an agenda, fight difficult situations to implement and last. 

Congress's background, principles and ability to take risks have succeeded in making Afno's identity till date. This party has also come here through several series of divisions and has survived as the first or second party even though it has fallen a bit lower in electoral politics due to the promise of democracy . But by having a good knowledge of the rise of the new generation, increasing the leadership capacity, and embracing the working style that is popular by bringing people-oriented programs, its existence will continue . For the new generation, more ability than theory attracts . Therefore, because of the momentary attraction, it is seen that unknown candidates are sent to the election after winning. 

If there are signs that the populist role of the party leader is more influential than political culture, there may be political upheaval . When the leader of a political party is more self-centered and selfish, not only will the image of the party deteriorate, but the basis for survival in the future will also increase. In the coming days, Congress, UML and Maoists, who are called big, will have to face the challenge of saving the future . The survival base of other suddenly grown parties seems very weak. 

Although the beginning of the National Independent Party is promising, its future is uncertain. The main leader of this party whose immediate popularity was born, his old image is no more. Madhesi party is also in the process of coming together and breaking up on individual basis and since they look weak in the eyes of the people, it is not possible to tell what the future politics will be like. Since their popularity level has dropped, even if they join now, it won't be that worthwhile. 

It is difficult for them to come as a transformative force because of the desire and compulsion to go to the government and not being able to do anything even after going. But the place of dynamic regional party remains in politics, which is only possible in Madhesh.

The government's position of breaking up, joining and forming alliances continues and the instability continues. Although the current mixed election system is one of the reasons, the collapse of the unanimous government of one party has been shown by the disintegration of the government which was said to have the majority of Congress and later UML and Maoists during the multi-party period. It has been proven wrong that only one-party majority government will be stable. In the world, there has been a lot of change in old ideas and practices and it is time to look for an alternative art that suits the new situation . 

It is today's hawk to prevent the erosion of democracy when the party concept and the style of running it starts to resemble a one-party system . It cannot be said that a chaotic situation will not be created because of the tendency to dissolve the parliament when it is not favorable to them, to use the ordinance to falsify the parliament, and to remain in power anyway but unable to provide a competent government. 

is a reflection of the public's anger, frustration and dissatisfaction. It forces the government to be accountable. Many changes in Nepal were only possible due to compelling circumstances. Such changes would have been easily possible if the ruler had vision. This does not mean that the people will always come to the streets and hold slogan rallies . If there are such pressing actions to improve the situation within the system, it should be taken positively. Had the Madhesh movement not created pressure, the current federalism would not have been possible. Timely management of such pressing movements is only when the ruling class or leaders come to their senses. 

In fact, the process of political grouping in a multi-party system and a diverse society continues . It cannot be said that it will bring chaos or destroy the order . But the danger is that if political parties spend financial resources without prioritizing economic development to create democratic culture, reduce social inequality, and if they do not develop a new way of running the party, instead of creative chaos, uncontrolled chaos will take place . In the same way, ritual formation is also important. For this, lessons on democracy should be taught in education from the primary level. It is called socialization.