Satirizing Nepal's political environment, people say, "It is easier to register and run a political party than to register and operate a business in this country, and it is also more profitable." The statement may seem like an exaggeration, but when you look at the statistics, this satire is not just an emotional response, but a harsh depiction of our political reality.

In a country with such a small geographical and demographic structure, more than 170 political parties have been registered with the Election Commission today. Despite so many parties, there is no significant improvement in political culture, governance style, and public trust. This raises a serious question – is the problem the number of parties or the quality of the parties?

Today, there is no shortage of ‘dreams of building a country’ in the country. Dreams abound in speeches, slogans, and social media. However, history has repeatedly proven that a democratic, prosperous, and just country cannot be built from undemocratic, individual-centered, and opaque political parties. Therefore, the question now is not ‘how big is the dream’, but what kind of political party carries that dream. The question now is – how transparent is the economic activities of that party? 

Political parties: A factory for building a country or an individual enterprise?

The main force that runs the state is political parties. Parliament, government, policy making, law enforcement, and the ideological direction of society – all are decided through political parties. Therefore, a political party cannot be a private company, a family trust or an institution that secures a lifetime presidency. Political parties have become extremely infamous because the presidents of the Congress, UML and the then Maoists have shown their desire to remain at the helm of the party for life. 

In this context, as a founding member of the Dynamic Democratic Party, one of the more than 170 parties registered with the Election Commission that recently received its registration certificate, I myself have become a character mixed in this ‘flood of political parties’. This admission is important because I am not a spectator sitting outside criticizing the parties, but a participant entering this system and raising questions.

Celebrity, populism, individualism and the illusion of party

There is a trend prevailing in today’s Nepali politics – a competition between celebrities and populist faces to ask ‘Whose party is bigger?’ Crowds, likes, trends and shouts are being made the measure of political power. In the old parties, the Maoists were grouped around Prachanda, the UML has been committed to the Oli path since the 11th general convention, the National Independent Party is synonymous with Rabi's party, Ujjaya Nepal is being branded in the name of Kulman, the philosophy of the Labor Culture Party has become a harkpath.

In such an environment, it is natural to feel that a party that is new in politics, not very well known in the public, and founded by a few people like us who came from professional life, is lost in the crowd of political parties. However, this is where a serious question arises – is democracy a game of the crowd or of institutions? Is democracy only a competition of numbers or of quality?

History shows – popularity may be temporary, but institutions are long-lasting. Democracy is saved not by populism, but by a proper political party structure. 

What is a democratic political party? 

A democratic political party is not just a machine for winning elections – it is an organization based on an institutional structure, a shared value system, a rule-based leadership selection process, and meaningful participation of members. 

Leadership selection in democratic political parties is competitive and regular. Dissent is not a crime, it is considered strength. There is a balance of power and control within the party. Economic activity is transparent. Policy making is not done through individuals, but through processes. And, the decision-making process is participatory.

There are internal debates, factions, and differences within the Democratic or Republican Party of America, but the decision-making process is institutionalized. Therefore, even when the leadership fails or there is a populist president like Donald Trump, the party system does not collapse. Looking at democratic parties, it is clear that leadership comes and goes, but the institution remains strong. So far, our leaders have been in disarray, and no party has been able to become an institution.

Although we are theoretically democratic citizens, in practice, we have a social understanding that everything will be fine if the right person or the person we like comes to power. Therefore, how important internal democracy within parties is for democratic governance has not become a subject of great debate and understanding among us.

In fact, the practice of democratic governance begins within the party. Only qualified leadership finds a place in democratic parties. Individual-centered leadership cannot develop permanently in a democratic party. There is no need to sing the praises of characters like KP Oli, Prachanda, and Deuba forever (for more than 3 or 4 decades). If there is no democracy within the party, expecting democracy in the government led by such a party is just an illusion.

Democratic Party: The Foundation Pillars of Democracy and Society

The foundation pillar of democracy is not just the constitution, elections, and government, but the institutional development of democratic parties. The soul of democracy is political parties. Political parties in Nepal are individual-centered and in name only. That is why society is weak, the state is unstable, and we common citizens are disappointed.

Even after 36 years of multi-party system, democracy has not been institutionalized in Nepal. The main reason for this is that political parties are following new or old individuals, not a single political party has developed institutionally. This is also the root cause of the political disillusionment seen in Nepal today – the parties themselves are not democratic.

It is not wrong to dream of building a country. However, it is irresponsible to just share dreams without forming a political party that can fulfill that dream. The old ones did not form a proper (democratic) political party, nor have they even tried to do so.

If other new political parties, like me, only talk about building a country without forming a proper political structure and without publicly showing that structure, then that is the beginning of even worse politics than the old ones. Therefore, let us now openly debate – a proper country cannot be built without a proper political party. Today's criteria should be clear – those who share the dream of building a country must first create and show it by creating a quality political party.