Context 1- A party called 'Democratic Lok Dal' was formed in 2049 under the leadership of Devendra Raj Pandey, who came into the limelight after resigning from the post of Finance Secretary in 2036, played an active role on behalf of the intellectual community in the 2046 People's Movement, and headed the Ministry of Finance in the Krishna Prasad Bhattarai-led Council of Ministers in 2047.

This party was discussed on all available platforms for debate and discussion at that time. Expectations were expressed for the Lok Dal, but it did not get the support of the voters in the elections. In the by-elections of 2050 Magh, both its candidates from Kathmandu and Jhapa could not even cross 100 votes. In the mid-term elections of 2051, only Pandey got four votes. No candidate could be a close competitor. After the mid-term elections, the party split. Pandey also left the leadership. Gradually, the party faded into obscurity.

Context 2 

A party called 'New Power, Nepal' was announced on 2073 BS under the leadership of Baburam Bhattarai, a leader of the Maoist armed war, a successful finance minister, a former prime minister and an established leader. He had abandoned the then UCPN-M after the constitution was promulgated and had announced the party along with limited leaders of the former party, successful people who had made a name for themselves in various professions, and celebrities.

It was natural for a new party to be announced under the leadership of Bhattarai, who had been debating the need for a new force even before the party announcement, to receive attention and expect success. To some extent, at the party announcement program, UML Chairman KP Sharma Oli had declared that ‘New Force can push other parties apart from UML’. However, the party did not take off as expected. In the 2074 general election, only Chairman Bhattarai won, and that too by coordinating with the Congress. New Force gradually fell into a cycle of unity and division with other parties.

Context 3 

After creating a popular image as a television program host, the ‘National Independent Party’ was announced on Asad 20, 2079 under the leadership of Ravi Lamichhane. Despite uncertainty over its theoretical, ideological, and organizational aspects, it won 20 seats, including 7, in the election held on Mangsir 20 of the same year. It became the fourth party in the 275-member House of Representatives. It immediately came to power, was ousted, and returned a few months later. It is not appropriate to assess the future success/failure of the party right now. However, this party is mired in internal and external challenges. Chairman Lamichhane himself has established himself as a controversial figure.

He is currently accused of cooperative fraud, having barely settled the citizenship and passport controversy. He was released on bail just a few days ago after being in prison for a long time. Since the issues of citizenship, passport or cooperative fraud involving him became public, the entire power of the party has been focused on defending Lamichhane. Organizational activities are sluggish. From founding General Secretary Mukul Dhakal to Santosh Pariyar and Sumana Shrestha, who are known for their strong role in the dissolved House of Representatives, have left the party. There are still doubts about the party's theoretical/ideological aspects.

***

New parties are formed from time to time with the aim of challenging the established party on all issues such as theoretical, ideological, programmatic, party operating methods and establishing themselves. The same list includes – Prajatantrik Lok Dal, Naya Shakti and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). The reason for mentioning these three parties here is that they have at least one common feature – the popular image of leadership. 

Although some of the then ML and Marxist youths formed the backbone, Lok Dal and Pandey were synonymous. Naya Shakti was the product of Bhattarai’s political image, popularity and hustle. It was believed that it could be established through that. The ‘jacket ad’ with his photo printed in major newspapers on the day the party was announced is proof of that. The RSSS is still known as ‘Ravi’s party’. The constant glorification of Ravi by leaders and activists, the comparison with BP and expressions like ‘Ravi will be the president as long as he lives’ confirm his unwavering influence in the party.

This series is not limited to these three parties. It is a tradition for people who have achieved success in various professions and businesses and established a popular image to form political parties. Before the 2074 local elections, the ‘Sajha Party’ was formed under the leadership of Rabindra Mishra. Before the 2079 elections, the ‘Nagarik Unmukti Party’ was formed under the coordination of Resham Chaudhary. Similarly, the ‘Janmat Party’ led by CK Raut, which emerged from separatist politics, started competing in the general elections from 2079. All these parties were originally established on the basis of the popularity of one or two people. And, the common fate that they all suffered is an accident. They were not accidental accidents. They have a common reason – the popularity of the leadership, which is generally considered the strength and capital of the party.

The parties that came before them, formed under the guise of the popularity of an individual, are facing similar accidents because they are not ready to study and learn from where and how the previous parties failed. Parties like Kulman Ghising's 'Uzyalo Nepal Party' (he is not formally affiliated with the party since he is a minister), 'Gatisheel Loktantrik Party' with Birendra Bahadur Basnet as its central member (the party is his 'idea', he is only a central member since the policy of office bearers not to contest elections), and 'Shram Sanskriti Party' led by Harkaraj Rai (Harka Sampang) are more in the news due to the popularity of the individual. If such parties do not learn from the weaknesses of past parties, they will have to face the same consequences that previous similar parties have faced.

***

When a party is formed under the leadership of a popular person, it tends to gain attention even at the lower levels of society. It is easier to reach the target group through the use of social media. The size of the following of a popular person is also large, and the range of groups that are discussed expands due to the interaction on his posts. This does not require much effort to promote the party's policies. In some cases, social media discussion creates an atmosphere in favor of the party. In the 2079 elections, the work of creating an atmosphere in favor of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) was done by social media rather than its organizational mechanism.

The party announcement and the discussions held in various sections of society in favor of/against it benefit the party. Its acceptance is also easily established due to its famous leadership. However, that discussion and acceptance cannot remain at the same volume for a long time. In other words, as easy as it is to be established, it is difficult to sustain. For that, the party must decide on an additional strategy. This is where parties fail.

First, there is the issue of transforming the image of the original leadership into the image of the party. Society cannot always be attracted to any person. Society seeks novelty. It seeks new topics. It seeks new information. After a certain time, it also seeks alternatives to good people. This is a common character. On the other hand, a person himself is a composite of many strengths and weaknesses. When he enters the political arena, his many issues come to the fore. The weaknesses of individuals in a particular profession or business are not made a subject of public debate to the extent that they do not affect the collective interests and morality of society. That is neither possible nor necessary. However, the weaknesses, nature, and character of individuals in the political arena affect the collective beliefs and expectations of a large group or the country. Then, public surveillance begins on them, and additional interest is expressed.

Second, as individuals advance in politics, they may find themselves in many controversies. There is a possibility that their own weaknesses or limitations will destroy their moral foundation. Therefore, it has been said that the image of an individual should be made the image of the party and the capital of an individual should be made the capital of the party. Decentralization, transfer of responsibility, collective leadership, programs, a democratic and transparent system in the party's decision-making process, clarity in the party's theoretical/ideological aspects, and the process of determining the path to joining the party accordingly build the image of the party. If the party's ideas and policies are clear, people who like them or can express their commitment to them will join. If equal participation in the democratic system and decision-making process can be ensured to make them active and responsible, their belonging and attachment to the party will increase. It puts the party on a solid foundation like a pyramid. At that time, leadership becomes a general technical issue, the party's policy, goals and program are the main ones.

If the system of joining the party is encouraged and motivated not by liking the policy and program, but by seeing a popular person in leadership, then any kind of person will join. Mainly, those who want to make the party a tool to fulfill their own interests and cover up their weaknesses join. Ambitious people who find it difficult to cope with the party join. If they see a situation where their interests are not being fulfilled, they immediately leave.

Why were parties like the Congress, UML and the then Maoists able to survive for a long time? Because, these parties prioritized principles, policies and programs more than the personality and popularity of a particular leader. People joined on that basis. Although the process of building the Congress had begun with the call published in the newspaper by BP Koirala, it immediately expanded to the general public. The cadres were not able to see and meet the leadership of the UML (then Jhapa Committee, KOK, ML) and the Maoists. The things that attracted people were their principles, policies, programs and struggles. That is why the party lasted for a long time. However, there are many other reasons for this.

***

Popular leadership is useful for the party's interests only for a certain period of time. After that, it becomes a risk for the party itself. Because due to popularity, the ego develops in it that it considers itself the party. The pride that the party has survived and will survive on its own popularity increases. At that time, it shows reluctance to share responsibility/power. When sharing responsibility, it feels like its privileges are being taken away.

The continuity of its single leadership, single power, and the public attraction towards it lures it. It tries to continue that. It devises ways to further strengthen its leadership by using people close to it within the party. To maintain its monopoly, it raises populist issues. It propagates that the party and the country are in crisis. Amidst this propaganda, it discourages and obstructs even the regular democratic processes of the party, saying that 'strong leadership is needed to fight the crisis'. And autocracy prevails within the party. Not all parties adopt the same formula, but this is the trend that most agree with.

When the image and capital of the leadership are not made the image and capital of the party itself, and an alternative leadership group is not prepared by transferring responsibility, then when the main leadership is in crisis, the entire party ranks are shaken. That is the reason why the entire party is in a situation like being imprisoned when RSP President Ravi Lamichhane was imprisoned. Because, this party has no faith in its own policies and programs, or in the capabilities of other leaders. If that were the case, Lamichhane could have been suspended or removed from office so that he could return to the party leadership only after the charges against him were dropped. Since it is believed that the image and future of the party depend on the image of the leadership, the energy of the party ranks has been focused on protecting the image of the leadership. If Ravi is not saved, the party ranks fear that the party and its own political future will not be saved either. In such a situation, the party does not stand on a strong foundation like a pyramid, but rather like a bamboo pole, where everyone is looking only at the leadership like a bell tied to the top.

This situation is seen not only in new parties, but also in established and big parties. Whenever a person becomes very powerful, the voice of those who consider the leadership bigger than the party increases. As a result, that party becomes less of a party and more of a 'fan club'. Today, most communist parties are suffering from this trend. Parties such as UML, Maoist Center (now Nepali Communist Party), Rajma, Nemkipa, Male and others are revolving around a limited number of people. They are forced to wither away due to the lack of a democratic system in leadership selection, lack of ideological friction, lack of attraction to new facts and ideas, and lack of facilitation for the entry of the new generation. Even the democracy within the party, which was once known for internal democracy, is becoming weak. Infighting and division have become a regular occurrence.

***

There are other aspects to why old parties can survive even in crisis and new parties wither within a few years – theoretical/ideological basis, financial resources, organizational base. Those who are able to coordinate all these aspects are found to survive even in crisis. Many of those who started parties seeing supporters around them cannot coordinate and seem to have suffered an accident.

Leaders like Congress, UML, and the then Maoists had a lot of ideological friction in the beginning. There were leaders like BP Koirala in Congress, CP Mainali and Madan Bhandari in UML, and Mohan Vaidya and Baburam Bhattarai in Maoists. Their friction in ideas and principles was both within and outside the party. Many newly formed parties do not seem to be particularly interested in this direction. They seem to want to run, but they seem to be at a loss as to where to run. Clarity in ideas and principles is needed to know exactly where to run. What to do? How to do it? It is needed to answer the question. How to understand history, how to understand contemporary events. It is needed to determine the ground on which one stands to do politics. It is needed to unite people from different backgrounds who join the party in common interests. Without all this, the leaders of the new party are heard speaking loudly, but it is difficult to determine what, why and for whom they are speaking.

The old parties have also worked tirelessly in building the organization. They have gone underground and convinced one person to join their party. Such an organization was hierarchical. It was connected through multilateral relations. There was interaction. There was competition within it to move forward by declaring themselves superior. The general public, people from various professions and professions, gradually organized themselves into the party, directly or indirectly. And, a strong organizational base was formed. They also had supporters outside the organization. That is why even if there was a moment of crisis in the old parties, they could quickly recover or rely on themselves to manage. New parties, on the other hand, are not organizations, but consider supporters as their everything. Whereas, there is no organizational or ideological competition between supporters, there is no dual relationship at the level. There is one-sided attraction. There is no responsibility or accountability. Mainly, supporters quickly look for new 'ideals', just like listening to old songs even if they like them and listening to new ones. That is why parties that are formed under the guise of supporters quickly fall into disaster.

There were leaders like Suvarna Shumsher who helped the Congress financially. Many leaders of UML (then ML) went underground and ate and lived with the people, so they did not need much money to run the party. The Maoists were also dependent on the people during the war. They used to collect donations and even loot for financial resources. When these parties came to power, they built strong financial relations with the rich. Therefore, initially they were able to take the party forward, and gradually built a position to run the power. 

Industrialists, businessmen, and traders also support the party with open hearts that has the possibility of going to the government. Once in government, parties also work in their interests. A dual relationship has been formed between them. Some parties have even made industrialists and businessmen proportional members of parliament/members. Levies are raised from appointments made on the recommendation of the party. As soon as their party comes to government, even the lowest cadres are happy, because a share of the profits reaches them. This also plays a role in protecting the party's organization. It is very difficult for a new party to obtain financial resources in this way. Because, it is difficult for them to enter the already established economic relations. It is also difficult to find new and transparent alternatives.