The election debate in politics is moving forward rapidly. The country has entered the election fever. There are clear signs that this time the election will focus more on leadership than on policies and programs. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has decided to project Balen Shah as the possible face of the Prime Minister. The UML has indicated that it will move forward with KP Sharma Oli and the Nepali Congress has probably considered Gagan Thapa as the face of the Prime Minister.

In this context, during the preparations for the special general convention of the Nepali Congress last week, one of the main issues on which there was no agreement between the then establishment and the special support group was whether to declare Gagan the Prime Minister or not. This shows that the political debate is not only between parties but also within the party, focusing on the question of ‘Who will become the Prime Minister?’.

Parliamentary elections are being held in 165 constituencies across the country on Falgun 21, where voters will choose representatives. However, looking at the public debate, media and political statements, the elections are starting to look more like a competition to select the Prime Minister than to select MPs. This trend is raising serious questions about the essence of the parliamentary system of governance and its practical practice.

Risks

Nepal’s system of governance is based on the ‘Westminster’ parliamentary system. In this system, citizens elect MPs, not the Prime Minister. And, the person who can garner a majority in parliament is appointed as the Prime Minister. The question of what impact will it have on the election by announcing the Prime Minister within this structure is currently at the center of political debate.

The basic foundation of the parliamentary system is collective leadership, party-based decision-making and parliamentary accountability, which have created parliamentary supremacy. However, by announcing the Prime Minister before the election, the election may gradually be pushed towards a direct executive style. This increases the risk of strengthening individual-centric politics rather than parties, ideas and policies. As a result, the question of ‘who will be the Prime Minister’ may become the central agenda of the election rather than a policy-focused debate. Such a trend also carries the risk of institutionalizing messianic politics over time. And, Nepal’s politics of seeking a hero will not end.

When the name of the Prime Minister is decided in advance, there is a possibility that the debate, vote of confidence, leadership change and internal democratic practice within the parliament will be limited to formalities. In a parliamentary system, leadership should emerge from the parliament, while the leadership decided before the election may reduce the parliament to a mere body that approves it.

History has clearly shown its risks.

Announcing a prime minister is not a guarantee of votes. Merely a popular name or leadership ‘projection’ does not bring permanent political reform or institutional strength. It can become a high-risk bet and can lead to despair in society.

Although the benefits of announcing a prime minister are not theoretically appealing, there is a growing opinion that the party becomes transparent by asking ‘who should be the prime minister?’ after voting. Politics and power politics are complex. It is difficult to clearly distinguish black and white here. Current Nepali politics is also driven by a kind of whim/wind rather than any specific ideological direction. Even though this is the third parliamentary election after the new constitution, it is not unnatural for the common citizen to seek ‘newness’ when the political style remains the same. It is natural for the debate that ‘this should be the prime minister of the country now’ to gain ground as the three old leaders seem to have taken turns holding the prime minister’s chair. There is a growing opinion that ‘the Prime Minister should not be old anymore’.

In this context, there are some practical benefits of declaring a Prime Ministerial candidate and going to the election. First of all, it gives a clear message to the voters as to ‘whose leadership will the government be formed under?’. It can play a role in attracting voters who are particularly apathetic, confused or decisive about politics. A leadership-focused campaign makes the party’s message simple and media-friendly, especially in media debates and public dialogue.

Viewed positively, this step seems to make the leadership more accountable. The declared Prime Ministerial candidate must take direct responsibility for the election manifesto, policies and election promises. Whether they win or lose, they cannot escape from leadership responsibilities. It can be argued that this will increase the accountability of the leadership. In addition, openly stating the Prime Minister’s claim can reduce uncertainty and ambivalence within the party. And, it can also form a clear basis for the balance of power. This increases the need for the party to be led by one person and the parliamentary party to be led by a different person. This also helps in the balance of power.

There is an example of declaring a prime minister and going to the election in a parliamentary system based on the 'Westminster' tradition like India. In the 2014, 2019 and 2024 Lok Sabha elections, the Bharatiya Janata Party and its coalition parties had clearly put forward Narendra Modi as the prime ministerial candidate. This strategy was successful due to a strong organization, the possibility of a clear majority and the public appeal to the leadership. There, the announcement of the prime minister was not a means of confusing the voters, but a means of presenting a decisive alternative. Similarly, in the 2074 federal election in Nepal, the UML-Maoist Left alliance clearly presented KP Sharma Oli as the future prime minister. The prior agreement within the alliance, the slogan of stability and the fact that a majority would be obtained made this strategy credible. However, this could not be sustainable and the party split.

Conclusion: It is valid, but institutional thinking is necessary

The important thing is that it is not illegal to declare a Prime Minister and go to the election. However, it is not a mandatory or natural practice of the parliamentary system. In a multi-party, coalition-based and institutionally weak democracy like Nepal, it risks strengthening individual-centered power politics in the long run. However, it is not realistic to always view it only negatively. We have also seen successful practices where it has worked in favorable contexts.

However, the main question is not about the name, but about the political project. Going to the election by putting forward the name of the Prime Minister is only worthwhile when there is a clear policy, credible program, institutional commitment and respect for parliamentary dignity behind it. Otherwise, the declaration of leadership is not a means of reform, but can easily become a means of reducing the competition for power to an individualistic game.