It has been two months since the then government was overthrown and a new government was formed. There are 112 days left for the election. But the political direction of the country is still being presented as a mess. As in the normal environment, some people are trying to make themselves look like a floating island by advocating the principles and methods of political science and raising questions elsewhere based on them.

This article discusses how to understand the youth uprising that took place on 23 Bhadra and how to adapt the narratives that the main parties are currently trying to make into sociological and political philosophy.

First of all, politicians should be aware that if they cannot work in the public interest and public will as per the mandate, the public opinion can be withdrawn at any time. If their representatives turn out to be idlers, the sovereign people do not wait for the day of the end of their term. If possible, they remove them through the law, otherwise through rebellion. When citizens use their constitutional rights and come to the movement with their demands, instead of engaging in dialogue and negotiations to address them, the leadership considers it an attack on power, misuses the law and power created for crime control to suppress the movement and uses the state machinery as a weapon to protect power, and then the rebellion is waged against the same weapon that has become an obstacle to the movement.

The attack on the Nepal Police, the horrific killings, violence and damage are also the result of that. Therefore, the ruling party needs to understand that political problems must be solved politically and through the political mechanism. We must be sensitive to people's expectations and demands and be ready to listen and address them in a timely manner. Democracy cannot and will not be governed by oppression. The people must be pleased by working and delivering results. Only citizens can determine, mobilize and protect the politics of those in power. The security apparatus is supposed to protect the nation from crime and injustice, and to be committed to the political and legal system.

It does not and should not be a power grabber. In this direction, because there is no clear line of demarcation between the roles of politics, administration and security organs, the administration and security sectors, like politics, have become chaotic, chaotic and ineffective. Contrary to what should be the case, even now, as in the Rana regime, whoever has strength has a gun and whoever has a gun has power. It must be said here that quick decisions and rapid implementation like in autocracy and dictatorship are not possible in democracy. Time and everyone's patience are necessary to establish and achieve consultation, understanding, coordination, cooperation, support and acceptance. 

It is also an eternal belief of political science that only decisions and results made from the four-dimensional identity of method, process, justification and belonging can bring satisfaction to the common citizen and long-term peace in the nation.

Now let's look at the activities leading up to the 23 Bhadra movement call. The call was made using the name Gen-G given by the West to the 13 to 27 year old group, and since that name matched the education and lifestyle that that age group is receiving while living in Nepal, it not only became attractive to that group, but also suddenly became universally acceptable.

The tricky question for those who want to call this movement imported from elsewhere because of the name is how the environment was created to accept such a culture and lifestyle, and wasn't such a society built on the basis of policies, programs and declarations that the political forces that have been dominating politics for decades, as new, modern and scientific? What efforts were made in advance to explain and explain to the organized students who have been protesting for several days in preparation for peacefully taking to the streets with demands for reform, good governance and a secure future? Did the government try to understand who and what kind of people were in that group, their dissatisfaction, demands, and expectations? Probably not.

Rather, in the frenzy of technically succeeding in amending the age limit of the UML chairman in its favor, Prime Minister Oli was heard to be insulted at the Godavari gathering through insulting words like ‘manipulated’ and ‘genji-senji’. Now the same person is saying ‘there was an infiltration’ and some people are believing it.

Will the state ensure peaceful protests and manage possible infiltration or will the protesters? Not only completely ignoring the call for peaceful protests, but also making other provocative statements, ignoring the possible consequences after people take to the streets and making no preparations, not learning from the monarchists’ movement, destruction, and the state’s attitude in addressing it, and dismissing the government’s roots as infiltration, is unacceptable to any political consciousness and philosophy.

We are in a peaceful demonstration, the organizer is to seek permission from the government for the movement and provide information about the estimated number of participants to help make it peaceful. If there is infiltration or attempts to do otherwise, the government will take control. If the state ignores the dissatisfaction and expectations of the citizens in a power frenzy or becomes lenient, the citizens use their sovereign power in such a brutal manner that the level of power with which the state suppresses, the citizen response is also at the same level and speed.

Next, now Sushila Karki's government is being compared to this unconstitutional, 'discord' analogy. The question is also raised as to whose government the movement belongs to. What needs to be understood is that not all movements are initiated by organized political forces alone. When the world environment has changed due to modern technology, the elements of traditional movements always exist and political science or sociology does not say that the movement should be measured by those same standards and seek legitimacy. Because the irrefutable principle of social science is that only change is permanent.

In addition, as mentioned above, the youth's mobilization on 23 Bhadra was not for gaining power, but for raising awareness among those in power to reform them. In a democracy, sovereignty is vested in the people, and if the mandate received on the basis of the election manifesto is violated after coming to power, the people can withdraw it at any time. If there is no system for legal withdrawal at such times, there is no alternative to a popular uprising to remove those in power who have seized state power and machinery or to take back their rights.

Therefore, the current government formation is not purely constitutional or legal, but political, which many theories of political science not only accept with pleasure, but also reinterpret and analyze in terms of legitimacy. The history of Nepal's political movements and rebellions says that when the minimum needs, interests and concerns of the citizens are expressed in a formal, procedural and peaceful manner, the state power does not become sensitive or does not listen, then it turns into public discontent.

As such dissatisfaction increases and accumulates, rebellion explodes, when the popular uprising takes a violent form, the state apparatus cannot handle it. Because the state is, in principle, a legitimate unit formed to listen to, ensure, and address the interests of the people, not to bring any group to power, to turn it into a trap, to keep it in its fun, and to protect arbitrariness. Politics is not a means of running the state, it is guided by the system rather than the character. The commitment and accountability of the state apparatus should also be in accordance with the law and the system rather than the character.

Looking at the recent situation, the main characters of the Gen-G rebellion were not those in the current government. Many of them, like the youth who took to the streets in the movement, expected improvements in the implementation of this governance system. Some of them have been speaking out against the irregularities/inconsistencies of the previous government and working for reforms for a long time, either by participating in civil movements or professionally. In the new situation, someone had to go to the government, so the protesters believed and accepted the same faces because they were critical of the activities of the previous government.

The leaders of the party that abolished the Rana regime and the monarchy, which symbolized the institutional politics and culture of autocratic, feudalism and legacy, were repeating the same culture, culture, tradition and tendency, creating and promoting the same customs and traditions. In addition, the leader-kingdom/system that was introduced into the party instead of democracy, and the state was led towards all-round corruption instead of competition, and the supremacy of law, equal distribution of opportunities and justice were not present within the political party itself.

The leadership had created a system and tradition where the representatives would elect representatives and from them they would reach or remain in the leadership again, and so someone would remain in the leadership for life and everyone else would be devoted to their work and interests. There was no opportunity for new recruits in the party, nor for the least capable. There was no change in role and no transfer of responsibility without the death of a top leader.

Therefore, doesn't the division, internal opposition, and polarization into internal factions and sub-factions at various stages confirm that internal dissatisfaction was extreme within all major parties? Aren't we witnesses to the criticism, suggestions, and amendments made by the ruling party's own MPs in parliament regarding the government's work, working style, and policy? The examples of the ruling party's officials and officials leaving the government machinery saying that those mechanisms were failing show that even the officials of the ruling party were angry with the government's work? Except for those who are not adults, most people who voted for various parties, were affiliated, and were in charge of fraternal organizations, but also those who demanded and believed in major political reforms that the culture, structure, and mechanisms of political leaders and parties should be corrected, as video footage that emerged in the latest phase has shown.

More importantly, despite all this destruction and chaos, can we forget why no major party workers came in an organized manner to save their leaders and party offices? From this, even though the second day of the Gen-G movement turned into destruction, the lack of resistance from the ranks of party workers can be considered as indirect or silent support for the rebellion.

In informal conversations, even responsible leaders and workers seriously say that a major upheaval is necessary within the party, we could not do that by following party discipline, Gen-G showed. Aren't the above examples enough to say that the government is not particularly sensitive to public concerns and is moving forward on its own whims and fancies?

It has not emerged that other leaderships have spoken much, but the UML chairman himself is constantly making contradictory statements. In the sense that there is no support from the security apparatus, he says, 'Nothing is happening with the Prime Minister.' It is a question of one's own ability that a person who started his rise to power as the Home Minister three decades ago, who has been the Prime Minister four times after being ousted through a popular uprising, feels that the Prime Minister has nothing.

While coming to the conclusion that the elected chief executive of a sovereign nation has nothing, he does not reveal 'where and who has that power?' I also think that Oli's statement is partially true. But while he has repeatedly been there and aspired to be there, he has not said anything about it or made any efforts for reform. If he agreed to become the Prime Minister knowing this fact in the past, it can be questioned whether that position was obtained by sharing and bargaining in the executive power.

He still does not reveal where the power lies (otherwise, there could have been an initiative to make the future head of government an executive in the true sense), but when he only vents his anger against the Karki government for not having anything, is the greed and resources to become a nominal prime minister still alive? What is Oli's justification for saying that? 

The UML chairman, who took refuge in the army to save his life after assuming the reins of power at least several times and trying to denounce his grandchildren as a failure, seems to need to work in the latter half of his life for an environment where every citizen lives in a sovereign and state-powerful elected government, and not the old model of 'picking chicks by pointing a finger at the sky' while still keeping the people in a maze.

Not only him, but any leader who is loyal and responsible to democracy and the nation should not be hostile to this government, abuse it, belittle it, or insult it, but should step forward to help it based on experience and cooperate with understanding and understanding for the necessary reforms to make the government formed in the future powerful.

Based on Oli's own words, from gathering information to mobilizing the security mechanism, we should cooperate and provide support to make the post of Prime Minister, which is not in our hands, powerful, capable, and strong. The big parties that are out of power now may work on this, but they may not be able to help tomorrow when they are in government.