Great leaders are rarely born when society is at peace and comfortable. That is why it is said that leaders are born in times of crisis. Nepal is currently going through a period of extreme crisis. Some have called this situation a 'super transition period'.

Another comment is that we are heading for a dark tunnel. Whatever the adjective, the bitter reality of this time is that the country is in a deep crisis and confusion.

Amidst this confusion and crisis, new faces have started appearing on the political stage. There are new faces in the government. New faces are also dominating the street discussions. In a way, a tug-of-war to create a new leadership is underway in the country. This tug-of-war to create a new leader has been suddenly intensified by the street protests of Generation Z and the environment that arose thereafter.

The street protests of Bhadra 23, the brutal repression that took place in that process, and the chaos and destruction that arose after that repression have led to a political transformation in Nepal. First, the party power shift led to the formation of a civilian government. Second, not only has the influence of the old parties, which are considered political establishments, not only weakened, but the role of some new faces who have emerged in the name of the Gen-G generation in the decision-making process has increased, and is increasing. After the street protests took the form of a 'rebellion', some Gen-G representatives have been competing to become leaders, taking advantage of it.

Third, the debate over leadership change has intensified in the old parties as well. The top leaders of the three main parties, Congress, UML and Maoists, including Sher Bahadur Deuba, Khadga Prasad Oli and Pushpa Kamal Dahal (Prachanda), have become even stronger in their statements that they should take a political break. Among them, Deuba has stepped down from active responsibility and appointed Purna Bahadur Khadka as the acting president, taking a 'partial break' from politics. Oli has taken a stand that he will face the general convention but not give up the leadership, while Prachanda is also trying to relinquish the leadership. However, these leaders, who have been displaced from the hearts of the people, are under intense pressure to leave.

When the country is in a crisis and in a difficult situation, the ability of political leadership is tested at that time. At such times, the status quo is collapsing and values ​​are put to the test. In such an environment, the door to new possibilities for leadership development also opens. The country is currently in a difficult situation. It is besieged by all kinds of crises - political, constitutional, economic, and moral. Will a new leadership be born in this time of crisis? The Gen-G generation, which is considered not to be very interested in politics, is trying to come to the leadership. Will the Gen-G faces seen now be established as leaders? Can we hope to lift the country out of the crisis from them? Or are there rays of hope left within the old parties? The so-called top leaders of the old parties are trying hard to remain in the leadership. Will their efforts fail and a situation arise in which promising leadership will emerge in the parties? These are the questions that are on our minds right now. They need to be debated. Along with leadership development, building a strong system is also another important topic of discussion. This time, this column will revolve around these topics and questions.

Let's start with a brief
on Gen-G becoming leaders, from the growing political interest among Gen-G. As the country's political landscape has changed, the discussion and attraction of some faces of the Gen-G generation has increased. A recent example of how difficult the discussion is is the press conference held by a Gen-G activist Miraj Dhungana on Saturday. Watching the conference, packed with YouTubers, it seems as if they are struggling to communicate the weighty ideas of a 'charismatic' leader who will guide the country. However, there is Gen-G leader Dhungana, who is going through a lot of confusion and ambiguity. He wants to open a party, but not for elections. He has intense emotional excitement, he is reactive, but he completely lacks political reality and deep understanding. The simplest and easiest way out of the current crisis in the country is elections. However, he is saying that it is not the election that is being talked about now, but the election of a direct executive. While that is not possible in the current situation. And, it is not even the mandate of the interim government.

Gen-Gs feel that as long as there is no provision for a direct executive head in the country, there will be no change. However, they do not want to understand that serious debates are needed before that, whether it is justified or necessary, and whether it can have a positive or negative impact in the Nepali context. The issue of direct executive has been a topic of debate in Nepali politics and may even become an election issue. However, the insistence on going to the election of direct executive right now will further complicate the crisis.

Should we sit back and watch the filth accumulated in the pond of politics or go down to clean it ourselves? This question is not new. Probably, all generations have faced this question in their youth. The rising Genjis are also a generation that has grown up being trained and raised by the comment that politics is a ‘dirty game’. However, this generation is trying to go down to the pond to clean the filth accumulated in politics. Which in itself is a positive thing.

The dominance and dominance of the same faces in Nepali politics for decades has made people generally frustrated and bored. In a society that is fed up with the arrogant thinking of the old and the undemocratic working style under the guise of democracy, the Gen-G generation has become an attraction after blowing the trumpet of change. People are trying to find a glimpse of future leadership in the faces of Gen-G representatives. But, sadly, the Gen-Gs who are leading by the name of leadership are so naive and immature that they have not been able to communicate hope at all.

The Gen-Gs who have emerged on the basis of passion and excitement are suspicious, controversial and even criminal. Some have been seen involved in fraud, while others in heinous crimes like matricide. No matter how many Gen-G characters are seen in leadership roles, they are not hopeful. On the contrary, the passion and immaturity seen in them without knowledge is worrying. Gen-Gs are close to technology. This generation is a generation that grew up with social media and technology. They may be able to do ‘digital advocacy’ in shaping public opinion. However, there is no basic political/theoretical clarity in this.

Leaders are born in times of crisis. However, to become a leader, one must be able to unite with the people. A leader is born on the basis of a deep relationship with the people. He deeply understands the meaning of the crisis. He stands firm in truth, justice and honesty and has the ability to show a new path. Leadership matures through struggle, practice and the test of responsibility. Leadership is also a test of the collective consciousness of the people. Will the Gen-Gs, who are trying to become leaders in various incarnations, pass the test of political consciousness?

The challenge of generational transition in parties
With the debut of the Gen-G generation in politics, the issue of leadership transfer has become a mandatory condition in the old parties. Here, the old ones are the three main parties, the Congress, the UML and the Maoists. The issue of leadership change has become the most debated topic in all three parties at this time. All three parties are in the internal practice of leadership change. However, will that responsibility fall on the shoulders of the new generation after the leadership change in these parties? There is no situation where one can be sure.

Let's talk about the Congress. It is being analyzed that the atmosphere for leadership change is more in the Congress than in others. After President Sher Bahadur Deuba said that 'his era is over' and gave Vice President Purna Bahadur Khadka the acting position, many interpreted it as the beginning of a leadership change. However, the reality is that Deuba's current partial rest is the result of compulsion. He has no option to remain in the leadership again legally. The current environment does not help him to remain in the leadership chair. That is why he has moved Khadka, who is close to him. Did Deuba declare the end of factional politics with his departure? Is it now guaranteed that the leadership will be chosen on the basis of political ideas in the Congress, where the Deuba faction is dominant?

There is currently a debate in the Congress about whether to hold a regular or special general convention. Whereas, in the context of the fact that the number of members legally demanding a special general convention has reached, the party should have gone to a special general convention without any hesitation. The reason is, this is a special situation. A special general convention is natural in special circumstances. However, efforts have begun to be made within the Congress to postpone the special general convention as much as possible by calling it a regular general convention. In particular, even if there is talk of going to a regular general convention, the current establishment, where the Deuba faction is dominant, will continue to push the issue of leadership change. Even if Deuba leaves the Congress, the issue of leadership change will become more difficult there.

This difficulty of leadership change is even greater in the UML. The reason is that this party is immersed in the individualism of one leader. The country is currently worried about whether elections will be held or not? It is worried that democracy will not return to the path and will fall into further complications. However, the UML leadership has become a prisoner of ego and is moving towards confrontation.

The main responsibility for the situation the country has reached after the Gen-G protests, the subsequent repression, and the destruction after the repression is KP Oli, as the ruling Prime Minister. However, even after so much carnage and destruction, there is no sense of guilt or shame in these characters. They are constantly spouting arrogance and arrogance. UML, once established as a people-oriented party, is on the verge of extinction today. However, Oli is not worried. There is no talk of new leadership or issues in UML. Since the organizational structure of this party is strong, institutional activism is visible, although politically/ideologically it is limited to the status quo and personality worship. In the recently held central committee meeting, some leaders raised the issue of an alternative to Oli, but Oli, who is rich in a strong faction, dismissed the proposal.

However, he claims that there is no lack of succession in UML. In his conversation with the editors on Sunday, he claimed that he did not leave the leadership not because he did not have an heir, but because he needed to remain the captain of UML. In fact, he is making such statements strategically. His intention may be to ensure that the confidence of the UML ranks does not waver. However, past examples show that Oli can neither listen to criticism nor to competition. How many leaders were sidelined due to his single-minded style of work? And how many were prosecuted and suspended for criticizing? The references are endless. His style of work has been encouraged by some leaders who consider Oli to be the only 'brand' of UML. In essence, the issue of generational transfer has very little weight in UML.

The Maoists are also not in a different situation from the UML. This party also lacks a successor to Prachanda. This party, which has been undergoing peaceful transformation on the basis of armed rebellion, has come to its political/ideological end when it considered power as everything in open politics. If it had been able to work in the public interest after coming to power, perhaps the situation would have been different. However, the public trust in this party has been shattered by its involvement in power pleasures, personal interests, oligarchy, and middlemen.

Chairman Prachanda is trying hard to show himself different from other top leaders. He also talks about bringing Gen-Z into the leadership. First of all, he also talked about dissolving the committee and electing a new leadership from the general convention. However, despite these apparent reform efforts and commitments, Prachanda's lust for power has not died down. As a result, the issue of generational transition and leadership change in this party will not be as easy as one might think.

Leader or system?
In particular, there is a power struggle going on in the country right now between the status quo and the changemakers. Be it in the context of domestic struggles within the parties or in the overall political circle. Professionals from various fields are trying to become active in politics by establishing political parties. The young people of Generation Z are also seen entering politics institutionally. There are efforts and debates to change leadership within the major parties as well. While these debates are going on, the question that cannot be left out is the question of method.