Since the inception of institutional politics in Nepal, opposition and the search for alternatives have also begun. The main reason for this is that the parties and leaderships born from the foundation of movement and change have not been able to properly manage their leaders, activists, and organizations.

Dissatisfaction arises when the state machinery cannot be operated according to the expectations, needs and aspirations of the people.

People's needs are unlimited, but the resources to fulfill them are limited. Dissatisfaction arises when those limited resources are not distributed fairly or not at all. This can be understood and analyzed in both natural and unnatural ways. Because when the leadership tries to monopolize limited resources and shows an arbitrary tendency, then dissatisfaction starts to organize and ultimately takes the path of rebellion.

Dissatisfaction arises in political parties, from which alternative political forces are born and that too fails. The establishment side has continuously taken the reins of state operation. This success and failure has led to a multitude of dissatisfaction in alternative politics.

Most of the efforts seen in the name of alternative politics in Nepal have fallen victim to this weakness. They remained limited to a means of expressing anger against the government and leadership rather than becoming an alternative to the operation of state power. As a result, discontent was limited to a temporary opportunistic group instead of becoming a political force. Because it is very difficult and challenging to overcome the problems of destiny and fate.

Alternative politics does not mean only criticizing the old parties and leaderships. Alternative means demonstrating a different idea, philosophy and vision, a different style of work and a political stance that can give different results. Opposition without a correct alternative has no meaning. But in Nepal, alternative politics often stuck to the conclusion that all the old are bad, all the new are justified. The weaknesses of the old parties and leadership were pointed out. But concrete policies and programs to solve those weaknesses could not be presented. Thus, alternative politics remained limited to negative politics and could not build positive politics.

Another major reason for the mass of discontent is excessive dependence on emotional politics. Anger, passion, anger, frustration and revenge bring people together quickly. But they cannot keep them together for a long time. Many so-called alternative campaigns and parties were formed on the basis of shared anger rather than shared ideas. As the heat of anger subsided, the organization also weakened. When power approached or the moment of decision came, those groups themselves split. The repeated disintegration and division of parties such as Congress, UML, Maoists, Madheshwadi are historical examples of this reality.

In recent times, the influence of social media and media has made alternative politics even more superficial. Popularity, likes and shares were made the criteria for political success, which does not match the social reality on the ground. This gave birth to celebrity politics. People who are famous on social media were presented as alternative leaders overnight. But politics is not just about popularity, it is also about responsibility and accountability. A leadership that cannot face difficult questions with the people cannot provide an alternative.

Many so-called alternative leaders in Nepal have tended to run away from criticism, consider uncomfortable questions as personal attacks, and suppress voices of dissent. While alternative politics should welcome criticism and make it a means of reform. But here, criticism was considered hostility. A leadership that cannot deal with criticism is ultimately limited to an opportunistic crowd. The political developments of the last few years have clearly shown the repetition of this dissatisfaction.

As trust in traditional parties declines, it is natural for attraction to alternative faces to increase. This trend seen in cities including Kathmandu and Dharan is a sign of the deep and long-term dissatisfaction of the people. The main culprits for this are the old parties, leaders, and leadership. But such developments could not solve the problem of institutional alternative politics. A weak institution and success focused on individuals cannot change the system.

New parties, new campaigns, and forces with new slogans came and went for a while. But they could not provide a long-term political solution. When internal democracy, ideological clarity and organizational discipline within the party weakened, those forces themselves found themselves in crisis. Instead of becoming an organized force, discontent was once again confined to a group.

Discontent is also abundant within traditional parties. Voices raised demanding internal reforms sometimes turned into rebellions and sometimes into divisions. But even those divisions could not create alternative politics. What this proved was that changing the name is not the only option. Changing thinking, contemplation and tendencies is essential.

Another serious problem seen in the name of alternative politics is individual-centered politics. Individuals were made bigger than ideas. In the age of information technology, individuals were deified. As the popularity of individuals declined, organizations also weakened. When politics is limited to individuals, disagreements start to look like treason. In such a situation, healthy political debate is not possible and organizations are transformed into crowds.

Another reason why discontents cannot become an alternative is the fear of the exercise of power. It is easy to criticize from outside the power. But it is difficult to take responsibility for the operation of power. Many so-called alternative forces seemed confused when they approached the power. Instead of providing a clear alternative to the regime, they again limited themselves to the language of opposition.

History has clearly shown that countries have always been built by organized, disciplined and ideological political forces. There is no example of a country being built by a group of discontents. Discontent can open the door to change. But only organized political forces can move the country forward through that door.

Alternative politics is possible. But for that, we should not get stuck on discontent. Discontent should be transformed into ideas, ideas into policies and policies into institutional practices. The popularity of social media, momentary impulses and speeches of anger cannot build long-term politics. The biggest need in Nepali politics today is patience, clarity and honest political practice. We need a leadership that can not only dream of alternatives, but also show the ability to implement them. The need of the day is not leadership of the crowd, but leadership that can take responsibility for nation-building.