Top leaders are trying to hold not only the party but also the election hostage. They are dancing the dance of self-interest by sweeping many criticisms under the carpet.
We use Google Cloud Translation Services. Google requires we provide the following disclaimer relating to use of this service:
This service may contain translations powered by Google. Google disclaims all warranties related to the translations, expressed or implied, including any warranties of accuracy, reliability, and any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and noninfringement.
Electoral alliances have been in disrepute in Nepali politics for some years now. Citizens have been expressing dissatisfaction with the practice of alliances, especially those adopted by established parties to create 'syndicates' to sway the outcome of elections in their favor.
However, even though the dissatisfaction and anger of the citizens towards them have been expressed through various means, it seems that the parties are not ready to improve. The context is the alliance formed for the National Assembly elections. In this election, the Congress, UML and LOSPA have formed an alliance. The NCP, on the other hand, has withdrawn at the last minute, saying that there was a disagreement over seat sharing. Although, in this election, the general public does not vote, only the people's representatives (local level chiefs, deputy chiefs, chairmen and vice-chairmen and members of the provincial assembly) vote. The alliance formed even in such an election has expressed the parties' neglect and disregard for the dissatisfaction among the people. This makes it clear that a big struggle is inevitable for party formation to give importance to the aspirations and anger of the people.
Elections are going to be held on 11 Magh for 18 seats of the National Assembly. For that, the Congress, UML and LOSPA have formed an alliance. From the alliance, the Congress has fielded candidates for 9 seats, the UML for 8 and the LOSPA for 1 seat. After the seat-sharing agreement was not reached, the NCP has fielded its own candidates in 17 out of 18 seats at the last minute. Since the local level chiefs, deputy chiefs, chairmen and vice-chairmen, and members of the provincial assembly vote, it is already clear how many votes each party has in the National Assembly. This is because most of the voters in the National Assembly have already won as party candidates. They usually vote according to their own party's policies. The voting power of each party is already determined based on the voters and vote share. Usually, the results are as predicted. That is why it is easy for parties to formulate coalition strategies. Even parties with only a small number of people's representatives can and have been doing so by forming alliances.
In practical politics, it can be considered natural for parties to adopt any kind of strategy to win an election. Just as winning by scoring a goal in football is considered everything, winning by getting votes in an election is also considered everything. But this issue should not be kept outside of public relevance. Otherwise, the weight of the election will be lost. The differences between the parties will be lost. Even so, these days, it is becoming difficult to distinguish between traditional political parties based on their working style, policies, and programs. No matter which of them reaches the government, the difference is no longer felt. Parties are abandoning their individuality and are dedicating themselves to each other. An opportunity to accelerate this is the formation of electoral alliances. Currently, major parties are coming together in such a way that has limited the election to a formal process. Even more strangely, the NCP was also in the final preparations to join this alliance. At that time, almost all candidates were likely to be elected unopposed. How ugly did such a scene look?
Regardless of whether the people or the people's representatives vote, the meaning of elections is to test faith and partisanship, test ideas and principles, test working style, gain approval from the people, and renew public trust. But when the election is made into a race to win at any cost, the parties have not been properly tested. Only technical victories and defeats are being decided. Alliances have become like traps, just as fish are trapped by traps, voters have also been trapped by alliances. Because, the option of choosing people's representatives who are bound by party faith and discipline has been reduced. Strangely enough, not only weak parties, but also the so-called big parties have come forward for alliances. On the other hand, UML Chairman KP Sharma Oli, who used to express disdain for others when they formed alliances in the past, is now not ashamed to win seats in the National Assembly by forming an alliance with the Congress. This also shows that there is a huge gap between the statements and actions of our leaders.
With exceptions, alliances can be considered natural. The people will also consider it appropriate. But that is not the case now. Parties cannot define their crisis as a crisis in democracy or the system. On the other hand, after the Gen-G movement, the desire for change in political parties has spread to the masses. It is found that the workers of every party are saying and taking initiatives to reorganize the parties, make themselves agile, and make themselves clear. However, top leaders are trying to hold not only the party but also the election hostage. They are dancing the dance of selfishness by sweeping many criticisms under the carpet. Their similar tendency is giving strength to those who question democracy. They say that the party should be strong in a democracy, but they themselves are firmly working to weaken the party, party faith, and affiliation to the party. Therefore, if there is a threat to the old parties today, it is from themselves. To avert the threat, the first condition is to reform their own arbitrary tendencies.
