What happens when you write? Does it develop? Questions like this are asked everywhere. I would like to counter-question: How can a country develop without a written plan in the 21st century? Show me just one example.

A fully implemented written plan is the first and essential condition for taking the country in the right direction. The ‘Saudi Vision 2030’, launched by Saudi Arabia in 2016 with the aim of diversifying its economy based on natural resources into the service sector, is a vivid example of why, how and how a written vision is effective. The foundation of the most talked about Korean development model in our country was also the five-year plan that began in the 1960s. Similarly, basic written plans such as the ‘Concept Plan’ presented in 1971 were decisive in the development of Singapore.

If we look at the experience of almost all countries that have developed economically since 1950, written plans have been decisive. Yes, behind the success of those plans was the firm determination of the leadership who understood the importance of the plan. Now let us ask ourselves: On the eve of this election, when the entire country is engaged in a determined effort to radically transform the economic, social and political situation, do we have the freedom to doubt the importance of a written plan? No, never.

Now let us also reveal another bitter reality. There has been a lot of talk about development in Nepal, a lot of plans have been written, but let's break the strong narrative that we should not make the mistake of discussing, communicating or formulating a plan. Communicating, formulating a written plan is the only way to development. Why has this path that has yielded results in many countries of the world not yielded results in ours? Many people with the same disease took the same medicine. Almost everyone recovered. If one or two people do not recover, should we criticize the medicine or look at the other problems of the patient? This is the question that history is asking us.

Was there a problem in our dialogue? Was there a problem in our plan? What were the reasons for not formulating a suitable plan? If the plan was correct, why could it not be implemented? Aren't these the main questions we need to ask now? Again, a leadership without a plan will definitely not change the country. And isn't it natural for a leadership with such a plan 

to write its plan in a manifesto, defend it and refine it? Isn't this also the main purpose of making the manifesto public before the election?

The practice of presenting manifestos in elections dates back to ancient Rome. The Tamworth Manifesto published by Sir Robert Peel in Britain in 1834 is considered the first modern political manifesto. It was originally a right-wing manifesto, but 15 years later, with the publication of the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, a new history of political ideas and policy declarations based on them began.

With the development of mass media, political parties have turned to the systematic use of written, oral, and audiovisual media to present their commitments to voters. In countries with presidential systems, live television debates between presidential candidates are given high priority, while in countries with parliamentary systems, a method of presenting the ideas and policies of the party rather than individuals in an integrated manner and competing in elections on that basis has been established. The practice of pre-election manifestos has become institutionalized and popular in South Asia, where Europe and Britain have primarily influenced politics.

Coalition governments are formed in many European countries. When two or more parties form a government, they formulate a common program in the election based on the manifesto. Specifically, they determine which parties to collaborate with to form the government or not based on the priorities mentioned in the manifesto. That is, the usefulness of the manifesto is not only for citizen dialogue during the election period, but also the main basis for determining all political activities, including party collaboration and government formation.

What is a living manifesto?

Before discussing the characteristics of a living manifesto, there is a clear issue that political parties must be made aware of. In this election, politics that discusses characters, confuses only parties with parties and opponents, friends and enemies, old and new, foreign maneuvers, etc., and overshadows the reduction and solution of the economic, social and political problems facing the country is never acceptable. That is old politics.

The Nepali people want the elimination of old politics. The false promise that we will change the character first, and then the policy will be changed is also not acceptable. There are still more than 40 days left for voting, present whatever vision you have. Citizens are eager to hear, understand and compare the visions of the parties.

A vibrant manifesto is one that has a clear root or identity with history. It is the ideas, policies and programs of reform based on the current political and administrative system, economic and social context. This is the body of the manifesto. It needs to be strong, healthy and agile. At least the leaders and workers of the concerned party should have a strong belief and attachment to it. That is the soul and spirit of the manifesto. In this way, a manifesto with a root, body and soul becomes vibrant. Now let's look at it in detail.

First, the manifesto should clearly state from which point the reforms of today will start. There are sharp, bitter and sour comments from the people towards the manifesto, which is like an essay written during the student period, with all the good slogans like "do everything" and "do everything". This election is at least demanding its disintegration. 

A vibrant manifesto reviews history. Any manifesto is built on an ideological and theoretical foundation. In particular, the party's views are assessed based on the words repeated in the manifesto. For example, if one manifesto contains many words like nationality, security, and duty, and another contains many words like equality, social welfare, and redistribution, the first is understood as a right-wing party and the second as a progressive party. The manifesto is the main source of data to measure the views of the party.  A manifesto with a

root diagnoses the overall economic, social, and political situation of the country based on facts and figures. In such a situation, it provides a brutal review of the policies and programs currently adopted by the state to improve or change it. In the current context, the implementation model of the Sixteenth Five-Year Plan (Financial Year 2081/82–2085/86) or its implementation with amendments is an essential root. What is the rationale for a manifesto without an evaluation of the Sixteenth Five-Year Plan plan? What are we doing now and how? What are we going to improve in it is the root of the manifesto.

The body of a vibrant manifesto is built on such a solid and reliable basis. There have been many criticisms in Nepali society about the body before this. The manifestos of the parties are similar, they are not practical. There is no continuity or consistency in the commitments of the previous election and the current election. They have not been able to pay much attention to the daily problems of the people, etc., etc. Such voices that Nepali society has been raising for a few decades are completely logical. After so much human and material loss in the last Bhadra, the old disease of Nepali politics must be treated in this election. Of course, the readiness of the parties towards it should be a major basis for voting.

The physical condition of the manifesto is evaluated on four major criteria. First of all, its completeness is looked at. The first basis is whether it envisages the all-round development of the country. Second, how has it determined the priorities? Under that, the roadmap for gradual reforms is discussed. Third, each policy or program is targeted at the citizens of a specific area.

Under that, the clarity of the manifesto is evaluated. It should be clear for whom, how, how much and for how long each policy and program was formulated. Fourth, implementation is ensured. In that, the manifesto should be clear about three specific issues – financial resources, laws and human resources or capacity.

For example, slogans like exporting goods and services worth Rs 300 billion in 10 years in the information technology sector, creating 500,000 direct and 100,000 indirect jobs are popular in Nepal. Currently, there are about 600,000 students studying in higher education in Nepal. If it is estimated that a quarter will graduate every year, 1.5 million students will graduate in 1 year.

In that, 500,000 will go to direct employment in the information technology sector in 10 years, so half of the students who graduate every year will now work in the direct employment sector in information technology. Yes? Are we on the same path? Is that happening? In a country where 500,000 people are directly employed in the information technology sector, how many students should be studying in the technology sector at universities in that sector? Will a law amendment be necessary for that or not? What should be the resources or administrative structure? Is there enough human resources to teach in such sectors? A manifesto that can answer all these questions in every planning sector is a living manifesto.

In the end, only a manifesto that at least the leaders and cadres of their party are proud of, that they only discuss it everywhere, that they resolve to change the face of the country by putting it into practice once, remains alive even after the election. Isn't the fact that the party center, without the party center, has made another manifesto public, proof that the center's manifesto is inadequate? A manifesto that stakeholders will look at over and over again for the next five years is a living manifesto.

Inevitable questions that the manifesto should answer

1. Nationality and civic unity: Since the election in 2048, have there been games that have divided citizens, created hostility and bitterness among citizens. In some cases, issues of national priority have been overshadowed. In particular, it is as if all citizens have stopped discussing the common values ​​and norms between themselves and others. There is a global acceptance, even by progressive liberal thinker Francis Fukuyama, that nationality and civic unity are essential conditions for the economic and political development of the country. Party manifestos should present the latest roadmap for this.

2. Generational conflict prevention: Not only has there been a change in the way one generation views another in Nepali society and politics, but the conflict has also increased. If this is not improved immediately, there is bound to be an additional cost. Commitments and announcements from political parties are necessary to make this election a fair to end such bitterness.

3. Concerns about national productivity: Nepal is at the bottom of almost all productivity-related statistics in the world. For example, Nepal is ranked 107th out of 139 countries evaluated in the World Innovation Index. Until the productivity of citizens increases, the problems of modern society will remain the same. Such lists or statistics are linked to many issues in the economic sector, from foreign investment to tourist attraction. Such indicators are building an international image. Manifestos should be able to absorb this bitter reality and essence. 

4. Strong state: Political scientist Joel Migdel easily put an end to the long discussion about what kind of state is a strong state. A state that can collect all the revenue it needs to collect is a strong state. What is our state like? The roadmap to make it strong should be the main part of the manifesto. What we are looking for is not a strong leader, but a strong state.

5. Model of cooperation between the three levels of government: Federalism and republicanism are only tools used to achieve democratic values ​​and norms. They are tools, not goals. It is ridiculous in itself that the use of tools or the proper use of tools becomes the main political issue. Cooperation between the three levels of government is indispensable for the operation of the economy, society, and politics envisioned by democracy. The policy models of the parties should be clear about its model. It should be announced. 

6. New sectors contributing to Nepal's GDP: There is no bigger issue in the economy than economic growth at the moment. The annual policies, programs, and budgets of the federal government for almost half a decade have been diagnosing the role of the state in a dynamic economy. The answer to how has not been found. A situation has been created where money accumulates in banks but there is no impact on credit. Now, it is not possible to change this with small reforms. कुल गार्हस्थ्य उत्पादनमा वार्षिक रूपमा १५–२० प्रतिशत योगदान गर्ने क्षेत्रको पहिचान र त्यसको रणनीति नभएको कागजात अब गफ हुन्, भाषण हुन् । 

७. कृषि, पर्यटन र जलस्रोत विकासको प्रस्ट खाका : २०४६ देखि कृषि, पर्यटन र जलस्रोतका बारेमा चर्चा नभएका योजना छैनन् । सभा र सम्मेलन छैनन् । तर ठूला भनिएका शैक्षिक संस्थामा त्यसका बारेमा अध्ययन, अध्यापन र अनुसन्धान शून्यप्रायः छ । अनि कसले विकास गर्ने हो ती क्षेत्रहरू ? हामी कहाँ चुक्यौं ? जुन क्षेत्रमा राष्ट्रिय अर्थतन्त्रको प्राण जोडिएको छ, त्यही क्षेत्रमा जनशक्ति विकासमा हाम्रो नैराश्यता हुनुका कारण के हुन् ? हाम्रा घोषणापत्रहरूले गम्भीर समीक्षा गर्नुपर्नेछ । 

८. रोजगारी कहाँ र कसरी : योजना र भाषणमा मात्रै सीमित रोजगारी, त्यसमा पनि गुणस्तरीय रोजगारी कहाँ र कसरी सिर्जना हुने जनतालाई प्रस्ट योजना आवश्यक छ । रोजगारी लगानी, राजस्व र चलायमान बजारजस्ता अर्थतन्त्रका सबै विषयसँग प्रत्यक्ष जोडिएको विषय हो । रोजगारीको प्रस्ट रोडम्यापबिनाको योजना सधैं खोक्रो नै रहन्छ ।

९. दयनीय पुँजीगत खर्चमा सुधार : तीनै तहका सरकारहरूले आफैंले योजना गरेको पुँजीगत खर्च सबै गर्न नसकेको एक दशक हुन लागिसकेको छ । रोजगारी सिर्जना हुन नसक्नु र बजार चलायमान हुन नसक्नुको एउटा ठूलो कारण यो पनि हो । कसरी गर्न सकिन्छ, घोषणापत्रहरूले जीवन्त योजना दिनुपर्छ । 

१०. क्षेत्रीय असन्तुलन : नेपालमा अझै पनि क्षेत्रीय अर्थतन्त्र भन्ने अवधारणा विकसित हुन सकेको छैन । एउटा भूगोल र अर्को भूगोलबीचको असमानता न्यूनीकरणमा उल्लेखनीयता सुधार हुन सकेको छैन । यसले नागरिक तहमा नै असन्तुष्टि वृद्धि गर्दै लगेको छ । यस्तो असन्तुलनले केही सहरहरूमा मात्रै जनसंख्या थुप्रिने र त्यसले सिंगो आर्थिक एवं सामाजिक संरचनालाई खलबल्याउने काम गरिरहेको छ । यसमा निर्णायक कदम अपरिहार्य छ । 

११. शिक्षा र स्वास्थ्यमा राज्यको भूमिका : भन्न त हामी सबैले राज्यको प्रमुख भूमिका हुन्छ भन्छौं । तर व्यवहारमा घरको ढुकुटीबाट सबैभन्दा धेरै खर्च शिक्षा र स्वास्थ्यमा हुन्छ । यसमा निजी क्षेत्रको लगानी पनि धेरै परिसकेको छ । यसमा सन्तुलित निकासका लागि धेरै ढिला भइसकेको छ । घोषणापत्रहरूले उपयुक्त निकासको प्रतिस्पर्धा गर्नुपर्ने प्रमुख क्षेत्र यो पनि हो ।

यस्ता अनगिन्ती सवालहरू छन्, जसका बारेमा प्रस्ट नीतिगत संवाद र छलफल आवश्यक छ । घोषणापत्रको प्रकाशनलाई त्यसको अन्त्य होइन, सुरुवात मान्नुपर्छ । बाँकी ४० दिनहरूमा हामीले हरेक क्षेत्रका बारेमा घनिभूत छलफल गरेर २२ फागुनबाट देशले लिने बाटोको तर्जुमा गर्नुपर्छ । नागरिक समाजले राजनीतिक दलहरूलाई निरन्तर झकझक्याउनुपर्छ । घोषणापत्रउपरको छलफलका कार्यक्रमको प्रोत्साहनमा निर्वाचन आयोगले पनि उदारता देखाउनुपर्छ । हामीलाई फगत एक–एक थान घोषणापत्र होइन, जीवन्त घोषणापत्रहरू आवश्यक छन् । त्यसका लागि निरन्तरको संवाद अपरिहार्य हुन्छ ।