The closed list of proportional representation has brought another stir in Nepali politics. The language and characters being criticized may differ, but in essence, the current heated discussion is basically centered around five arguments.

First, the abuse of the proportional system continued. Second, there was no fundamental difference between the new and old parties in this matter. Third, the behavior of the new parties, which were expected to stand in favor of reform, has added to the disappointment. Fourth, no matter what system and party comes to power in this country, the ruling class will always prevail. Fifth, the leaders of all political parties are surrounded by the economically wealthy classes.

All these arguments are filled with distrust of politics, especially those who have been in politics for a long time. With a long sigh, citizens have started saying, ‘The new and the old are the same.’ Although it seems that dissatisfaction with the new has been expressed, the narrative that is being established in Nepali politics that all the old are bad has once again been exposed. Although such a dialogue has been taking place at the citizen level for a long time, it does not seem that concrete steps have been taken regarding the meaning of this narrative, the definition of the characters it is trying to point out, and the solution.

The meaning of 'establishment or mainstream' in a nutshell

In any society, there is an establishment or mainstream and there are those who disagree with it. In particular, when the balance of power changes between them, political change occurs. This fact has been accepted by everyone from liberals to Marxists. Marx has clearly stated on page 31 of the English translation of the Communist Manifesto written in 1848, 'While feudal society was collapsing throughout the world and despite its enthusiasm spreading everywhere, the working class could not achieve the expected results due to the inability to fully mature and create the economic conditions for their emancipation, and the era of the bourgeoisie emerged.' That is, the capitalists became the mainstream from the feudalists and the workers still remained outside the mainstream.

Generally, among the people at the highest levels of the country's administration, law, economy and religious sectors, people who play a decisive role in major decisions of the state are called establishment or mainstream. In the case of Nepal, the power groups within a political party are classified as establishment and others. There is no such classification for the entire country.

In every country, there are different characters in the establishment or mainstream according to the political development. They change. For example, unlike Nepal, in Bangladesh and Pakistan, the army has been in the mainstream of politics for a long time. In South Korea, people who studied at three or four universities, including Seoul National University, play a decisive role. Also, in Korean modern history, all presidents except one or two have been from the southeastern Yongnam region, so politicians from that region are considered mainstream.

The commentary that is prevalent in Nepali politics today that ‘all the old are bad’ hides a deep feeling that all the characters of yesterday are part of the same establishment or mainstream. That is, there was no decisive opposition. The problem was not only in politics, but also in society and the economy.

Here, rather than defining and portraying any biological, profession or class, everyone who accepts certain values, beliefs and customs is interpreted as the mainstream or establishment. Even if some people within it are dissatisfied and accept it out of greed for indirect benefits, it remains the mainstream or establishment. That is, their culture and network are portrayed as the mainstream. They are all portrayed badly. The current use of the term 'jhole' is a vivid example of this.

The political parties that came to power after the restoration of the multi-party system in 2046 BS, especially those that forgot their ideas or ideals to reach power and were ready for any political compromise, the people who got positions and opportunities under their auspices, the groups that earned money from that structure and all the characters who gained fame in society because of that, are hidden here as 'yesterday's establishments'. Even though such characters appear to be in competition from the outside, they are portrayed as always having alliances between them and a culture of generosity that does not allow any opportunity to pass them by.

Such groups have been criticized for having a psychology of seeking only yesterday's interest, biased 'DNA' and a habit of remaining confined within a narrow circle. It is argued that since the mainstream is focused on its own benefits, it is unable to pay attention to new issues in society, politics and economy such as climate change, digital economy, etc. This situation has created a structure where only a limited number of individuals or groups benefit, as unhealthy competition is prevalent in society, economy, and politics.

The old saying that everything is bad can be surgically reversed. First, after 2046, there has been a predominance of individuals who behave as if they are above the rules, procedures, and laws in Nepali politics. They have been the mainstream of Nepali politics. Second, this trend has spread to society in alliance with them. This has created problems in the effectiveness of almost all public institutions and, over time, non-governmental organizations. Third, it has fundamentally undermined the standard of 'competence' in society, politics, and the economy. Fourth, in particular, it has become a structure where only those who accept such an unequal and unfair system benefit, and those who oppose it have been attacked and banned from all sides. Fifth, this situation has had a negative impact on the operation of the entire state in every way - administratively, culturally, and psychologically. Sixth, in this way, a strong but undemocratic, non-transparent and rule-breaking establishment or mainstream has developed in Nepal, which is based on alliances rather than individual capabilities, and its opponents or opponents of the establishment argue that it does not matter much whether they are in power or not.

The development of the 'establishment is all bad' narrative

There are certainly some basic problems in Nepali politics, society and the economy. But the establishment of a narrative that portrays a few characters or tendencies as the state of the entire state can neither be true nor a good sign. From important parts of the state to the social and economic sectors, there is no shortage of characters who are loyal to ideals and service. In particular, are the achievements around us possible without their sacrifice? The narrative that nothing has happened in this country is also not true in itself. What will happen to the future of the country if we try to forcibly establish the argument that people in any position have reached their positions through the wrong process and rejecting them is in the interest of the country and the people?

Let's look at a historical fact. Prithvi Narayan Shah ruled the state from Basantapur Durbar after the unification of Kathmandu. But he did not destroy the statue of the king of the previous regime. He preserved and continued many other cultural heritages for unity among the citizens. Now it seems that we are trying to go further than the generosity seen in that era.

In politics, any discourse is established in society through certain interactions. That is, many discourses exist in the country at once. The power situation within it determines which discourse will dominate. The word ‘Jhole’ is now popular in our country, where it was difficult to invite party leaders until a few decades ago. In such a situation, our question should be ‘How was a discourse created in present-day Nepal that depicts everyone in the past as a single mainstream or establishment?’

We need to be clear on one thing: Such discourse can be easily experienced in a country where ‘populism’ is prevalent. Leaders who promote ‘populism’ always show a clear difference between the people and the mainstream leaders. They advertise extensively that they are the only ‘good’ characters representing the ‘poor’ citizens, arguing that the citizens are too simple and that mainstream leaders are too corrupt. They also appeal that they have the ability to remove the current laws, statutes, and systems, since they are obstacles to development. In such a situation, they try to include as many characters and groups as possible in the mainstream or bad leadership of yesterday to succeed politically. It is not possible to analyze the current discourse of ‘everything old is bad’ in Nepal without moving away from ‘populism’.

How did such a discourse become established in Nepal? This is the result of the practice of Nepali politics since 2046. First, the Congress-Communist image has taken root in the country since the general elections of 2048 BS. The wrong political culture of questioning the morality of a political party based on its support has grown in Nepal since that time. Second, during the identity movement, the use of language that creates hatred received higher priority than language that is problem-solving oriented. Distrust and hatred in politics spread to every corner of society. Even today, no decisive steps have been taken to stop this trend. Third, the proportional representation system, pre-election alliances, and the politics of constant alliance changes have raised all kinds of questions about political parties and their supporters. Fourth, the practice of naturally portraying the current problems as something that happens in crony capitalism has also become prevalent. Sudan, Venezuela, Somalia, Korea, and Japan all have capitalism, but their cronyist form is different. The debate about where we are and where we are going has never gained priority.

In such a depressing social and political context, the number of Nepalis going abroad for employment has continued to rise. There has been a sharp increase in the use of social media. Another coincidence is that many of our Nepalis have reached countries that are authoritarian or have achieved economic growth during the era of authoritarianism. Nepalis living abroad have also increased their indirect political participation through social media. Only by attracting them has a structure been created that ensures votes locally or that they play a decisive role in the selection of candidates and parties by local voters. In particular, there was a competition between certain parties and their leaders on how to motivate such decisive but indirectly involved people in politics. This institutionalized ‘populism’ in Nepali politics. In this context, the rhetoric that ‘all the old are bad’ became prevalent. And, now, a new nature of problem has been added: generational. There has been an increase in the use of language that distrusts other age groups by citizens of a certain age group. This has not only fueled the ‘populism’ that has been practiced since yesterday, but has also changed the nature of competition in society and politics.

In this sense, if the political discourse currently prevalent in Nepal is viewed only as a competition or planned form of certain characters, it is flawed. We lose the opportunity to analyze politics as a whole. The election period should be used as an opportunity to discuss the comprehensive reform of our politics. In other words, it should be used as an opportunity to end the ‘populism’ that has been prevalent in Nepali politics for a long time. 

Is there no solution?

Such a situation is not pleasant from any perspective. The statement that everything is bad fuels the atmosphere of conflict and distrust within the country. We have a long list of basic problems that have been solved for two to three decades. For that, national unity is indispensable. The first and common need of the country is to create a model to end the statements that have been created and institutionalized due to social, economic and political multidimensional reasons.

We have deeply felt this in the process of submitting the closed list of proportional representation to the Election Commission by political parties. Here, anyone, at any time, can be 'bad and old'. Accepting the fact that this statement and political culture are expensive is the starting point for improving the current situation. Having said that, we should not insist that everything was right yesterday, only the politically established statement was wrong. Yesterday, the state failed to identify the problems of the citizens and establish appropriate policies and methods. In this country, 7 people die in road accidents every day. This number has not decreased in the past 10 years, and has increased in some years. यस्ता धेरै सूचक, जसले नागरिकको दैनिक जीवन मात्रै होइन, समग्र मनोविज्ञानमा नकारात्मक प्रभाव पर्दछ, त्यसका बारेमा राज्य र सरोकारवाला सजग रहेको, समाधानका लागि सक्रिय रहेको देखाउँदै नागरिकको विश्वास जित्नु नै अहिलेको गम्भीर विश्वासको संकट मोचनको उपयुक्त विकल्प हो ।