Today, the country's politics has reached a unique point. After the revolutionary Gen-G uprising of 23 and 24 Bhadra, discussions are ongoing regarding the structural changes that need to be made in the country's political and governing structure. The interest, concern and anxiety of the youth, who are said to be uninterested in politics, are at their peak. As the elections are approaching, the number of new voters registering for the voter list is increasing.

In this backdrop, the old political parties, which are said to be the factors of the erosion of Nepal's democracy, are enthusiastically trying to rebuild, unite and strengthen the party, citing the 'mandate' of the latest movement.

New political parties of celebrities who have contributed to national life, leaders of the Gen-G rebellion and some activists are also ready to 'debut' in the field. However, in the changed political environment, what should be the organizational form, agenda and priorities of political parties, which are considered the lifeblood of democracy? What amendments should be made to the provisions of the Political Party Law, etc., have not been meaningfully thought and brainstormed.

Clarity in philosophy

People committed to the same political ideology, philosophy and program can form a group and open a political party in accordance with the constitution, law and regulations. But the ideology of the party is a question of the autonomy of the concerned party. However, the practical question of commitment and dedication to the idea within the party is a matter of public consumption. Certain principles, philosophy and ideas are prerequisites for a political party. The magnet of thought itself gets support from the voters through a legal process like elections to fulfill its specific desires. 

Although there is not much ambiguity in the ideology of the old parties in Nepal, the party-based behaviors have not been guided by that ideology. At the level of behavior, the Congress does not have democratic socialism, the UML does not have people's multi-party democracy, and the Madhesi parties do not have Madheshism. The theoretical objectives of the so-called new parties are not clear. They are also ambivalent about basic political questions. The mathematics of elections is concerned only with technical wins and losses, and political jurisprudence is in a vacuum.

Making unnatural alliances with forces with opposing political philosophies in the face of elections has become a regular political practice, which has stifled the throat of thought. Therefore, the political parties to be formed now should not engage in any unnatural political practices other than institutionalizing the same idea guided by ideology. Rather than narrowing down to the momentary achievement of party and personal interests, it is necessary to focus on the practice of protecting and promoting broader national interests. Other related mechanisms such as ‘think tanks’ and school departments should be made capable, active and effective to facilitate debate on ideology within the party.

Functional Internal Democracy

Harvard University professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, in their book ‘How Democracies Die: What Our History Reveals About Our Future’, have described political parties as the basis of functional democracy and explained them as the main defenders of democracy. Similarly, Professor Krishna Khanal has mentioned that parties have the task of making democracy more democratic in a democratic state system. The prerequisite for this is democracy within the party. However, since Nepali parties are legally obliged to hold general conventions every five years, there has been no concrete initiative towards practicing internal democracy beyond that formality.

All the so-called major parties in the country are not issue-oriented but person-oriented. There is a practice of one person always being the supremo of the party. The fear of the party ending if that person is 'minused' has been created among the cadres. To keep a certain person at the helm of the party, the party statute is amended, and the 'political career' of the questioner is even destroyed or punished.

Therefore, now new political parties should consider the centrality of ideas, not individuals, and make necessary arrangements towards diversifying political opportunities. It is appropriate to include a prohibitive provision in the Political Parties Act, such as that a single person cannot be the head of a party for more than one term. It is necessary to establish a system of selecting party officials through scientific evaluation based on qualifications, capabilities and performance, eliminating the practice of remaining in the leadership even after failure.

Youth at the leadership level

Another problem facing contemporary political parties is the lack of representation of youth at the decision-making level. In most parties, the decision-making level officials are senior citizens. The youth, on the other hand, seem to have been lured into symbolic mechanisms like the party's fraternal organization or student organization, which do not play any kind of interventionist role. The youth have not been able to rise above the status of 'S-man' of the elderly leaders. This was also one of the reasons for the Gen-G rebellion. Therefore, the youth/Gen-G line should be kept in the party's executive committee. In this process, the diversity of the country should also be ensured.

For this, the practice of 'Three in One', which is prevalent in communist parties, that is, bringing three generations (elderly, mature, and young) into the leadership at a rate of one-third, can be emulated. The old parties should give mandatory retirement to those who have been prime ministers several times from active politics and keep them in the party's advisory group.