Shouldn't the speaker take any responsibility when the bill passed by the sovereign parliament is being tampered with? Why is the parliament silent when the constitutional council bill sent back by the president is again forcibly confiscated and pushed into ritual? What is the executive chief's attitude towards the Giribandhulakshit land bill, which has been disputed for almost eight years?

Why can't the Deuba-Olied parties speak when it comes to staging the Bhutanese refugee scandal, gold smuggling and the visit visa scandal? Madan Bhandari's wife's last rites of membership, why is there no need for anyone in UML? Ministers openly bargain bribes at the behest of the head of government, but why does it matter to the ruling party? Why do arbitrary government appointments in security agencies and bills that somehow silence the people get entry into parliament easily? However, the party led by Deuba, who preaches democracy, and the equality of 

There is no movement in the Left parties who are complaining. The rule of the middleman is becoming institutionalized by taking over the same business house from different agencies of the state. It seems that the country is in deep slumber. But this is not the case. In general, from the tea shop to the public discourse, such extreme hatred and anger towards the government, leaders, parties and ruling powers was rarely seen. The only reason for this is that, as the new incarnation of the vicious cycle of 'Oligarchy's rule of law' has been unnaturally embraced by the throats of the parliamentary system, the rampant frustration and apathy are becoming epidemic. Only the decree of the party leaders has been able to sustain the life of that party. 

While the ancient Athenian 'oligarch' appears in the modern 'Russian oligarchs' as a contagion in contemporary parliamentary democracies, the dictionary usefully interprets it as deriving from the Greek word 'oligarkes', meaning 'olig' (little) and 'arches' (ruler). Oligarch means 'a member or supporter of an oligarchy' and 'oligarchy' is a government controlled by a small group, especially for corrupt and selfish purposes. The most famous theorist of modern oligarchy is Robert Misels (1876–1936). In his classic 1911 work on the sociology of party systems in modern democracy, he introduced the concept of an interesting cycle called the 'Iron Law of Oligarchy'.

The interpreters of Junge law of oligarchy, who are called as elite theorists of democracy, Machiavellians, theorists of minority rule or sociological pessimists, must seem to have hung a bell around the neck of the current Nepali ruler. As an initiative to establish the rich aristocracy of the world's rarest, the two main parties in the parliament are strangling the parliamentary democracy by killing the opposition party system. From such a suffocating cold, all-round snorts and loud splashes made no difference to the Machiavellian followers.

Declaring one party of the recently defunct parliament ineligible for by-elections through the spectacle of husband-wife quarrels, another party failing to reach the stage of murder-accusation investigation on its leader Upendra Yadav, the alleged cooperation and Patanjali's skillful gimmick can be considered as the evolution of the oligarchy's wary legal cycle. Congressmen will not be surprised even if that initiative reaches the 'Empress' through the files of fighters.

The 'law of oligarchy' is a smokescreen for the elite rule or oligarchy of modern democracy. What is decried as masked democracy is a government circle created for the purpose of deliberate and systematic weakening of democratic institutions by autocratic rulers. No modern democracy can avoid the process of oligarchization. That is, in modern societies, democracy is doomed to become oligarchy. The aristocracy, once limited to political circles, has now transformed into a plutocracy controlled by a wealthy aristocracy spread over a circle of middlemen in contemporary parliamentary democracies.

As its messy nursery, the middlemen who limit our parliamentary democracy are running the farm by turning the chiefs of the two main rival parties into bulls. This is what American political scientists have named Kakistocracy. This is the reason why Nepali party members and supporters are turning into living corpses. 

History has notoriously documented how political parties have come to be effectively dominated by a group of cynical, self-interested and relatively stable leaders. As a result, the life system of our main parties is clarifying the fact that there is a logical leap from the oligarchization of party life to the oligarchization of the entire democratic system. 

The only way for ordinary citizens to gain influence is to form an organization with like-minded people! This process is showing a negative picture which has been proved futile by the analysis and research of many scholars. Because such organizations themselves are forced to loot in the arms of the elite. We can only reluctantly accept the apparatus of representative democracy, which has come to be seen as a technical necessity in modern societies because of the impossibility of involving each person individually in the act of governance.

Large and complex modern societies have developed a system in which specialized technical experts (politicians and bureaucrats) are devoted full-time to political, administrative tasks. The distance that such representation creates between the average citizen and the decision-making process, while normatively undesirable, is becoming inevitable in practice.

The gap between people and government fundamentally betrays the promise of democracy. The alternative is to openly accept the sad reality of the 'iron law of oligarchy'. But to refuse to compromise is to 'continue our quest' for 'true democracy'.

From the middle of the 20th century, the concentration of power in a unified elite began to be considered a threat to democracy. Simultaneously, efforts began to expand this approach further by emphasizing democratic participation as opposed to versions of elitist democracy. From a structural point of view, democracy cannot be imagined without political bodies, bureaucracy, enterprises or voluntary organizations. Essentially, power is concentrated at the top of these organizations and the incumbents who wield this power potentially form elite groups.

Elites often stage the destruction of democracy. The most deadly was staged in Germany's Weimar Republic. How democracies die (Levitsky and Ziblat, 2018) has beautifully illustrated the fact that democracy's resilience has been tested in recent attacks by elites in other countries, including Turkey and Hungary. Its repetition is evident from the fact that the incident being staged in Nepal has even entered the debate of the Parliament. Democracy is facing obstacles not only imposed from outside but also self-generated from within. These barriers can probably only be overcome or overcome to a certain extent. Complete abolition appears to be a mere utopia. 

In fact, Marxists began to refer to the state as the 'executive arm of the bourgeoisie' from the mid-nineteenth century. Most of the terms they coined, 'ruling class', 'circumference of elites' and Robert Michels's 'jungle law of oligarchy', are still the terminology that best characterizes our politics today. Karl Marx's concept of ruling class has been transformed into an aristocratic ruling class in the words of political scientist G. Mosca (1960). 

As Michels cautions, in the most succinct expression, the basic sociological law of political parties can be interpreted as: 'It is an organization which gives the elected over the electors, the mandaters over the mandaters, the representatives over the delegators. That is, "Whoever says party - he must have said that he is ready to be ruled by oligarchy." A leader is needed for guidance as a lifeless party system becomes immobile and passive to a functioning collective. In this way democracy is driven towards oligarchy, then inevitably becomes an oligarchy center. After such an oligarchic legal cycle has formed a handful of factions and sub-factions, its final outcome, like other sociological laws, is to transcend good and evil. Works have been written on the history of almost every political party in the Western world.

But when we consider the analysis of the nature of the party, SM. Lipset rightly observes: "Mischels and Machiavellians prove the great impossibility of democracy in politics by defining 'any separation between leader and followers as the negation of democracy itself.'" D. Beetham's (1977) summary seems to be aimed at contemporary Nepali rulers, especially Prime Minister KP Oli. 

Philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau said: 'When the people give themselves representatives, the people are not free! It ceases to exist. Rousseau's thesis confirmed by the method of empirical political science is the Junge law of oligarchy.

If the small number always rule, there must be an iron law of oligarchy, then what can democracy mean? Hence, political artificial intelligence (PAI) is yet to be found to provide a suitable solution to the global polluted political environment where popular sovereignty is becoming a mere myth. Robert Michels' allegorical allusion certainly seems poignant. In the first context of Aesop's fable, an old farmer on his deathbed reveals to his sons the secret of a treasure buried in the field. After the death of the old man, the sons even dig all corners of their farm to find treasure. But they don't find the treasure. But their indefatigable tillage improves the soil and ensures comparative well-being for them by producing good crops.

A treasure of stories can be a symbol of democracy. Democracy is a treasure, which no one will ever dig deliberately. But continuing our search, working tirelessly in search of the undiscoverable, we will work to yield fertile results in the democratic sense. (Miesels, 1962). 

dynamics are principles of democracy. It is this theory that identifies the movement that constantly challenges the elite rule as the true locus of democracy: it is in the movement that challenges the elite rule that the real life of democracy is found. So the true place of democracy is not, as is commonly thought: it is to be found neither in institutions nor in principles, but in the movement itself. This displacement forces democracy to be seen not as an end point, but as a continuous movement. So democracy is not a co-product of struggle, but the struggle itself: democratic benefits are co-products. It is not possible for a 'political class', i.e., a politically dominant class, to become a minority class without any highly developed social order.

Sometimes the new elite mixes with the old! Even the notion that sometimes, in more revolutionary times, it is completely overturned, the use of the Nepali middle-class aristocracy in the two and a half years since the last election shows a very interesting picture. In many cases the elites of one group are not simply replaced by another, but result in a continuous process of old elements continually attracting, absorbing and assimilating the new. Reunion of elites, i.e., mixing of two elements is also not impossible. In the theory of permanent mixture, the new theory of perfect exchange is closed. This is the reason why in the last two and a half years, the same middleman aristocracy has sometimes supported Prachanda, sometimes Deuba with Prachanda, sometimes supported Oli, and before that, Oli-Deuba has been juggling. 

The theory that history is a record of a continuous series of class struggles and that class struggles are always destined to end in the creation of new oligarchies has been repeated time and again. There is no essential contradiction between the principle that the new words blend with the old. The existing existence of political class does not catch the necessary materials of Marxism, not as economic principles, but are viewed as philosophy of history. When in Nepal that Marxist philosophy Ram-Sataly been reached in Earth, from the excavation of Marxist philosophy. The famous Rival of