"Those who don't have money shouldn't do politics" - I have been hearing this saying since I was a child. The understanding that ideas, struggles, and experiences are not important in politics, but rather money, has also changed over time. This is a harsh reality deeply embedded in today's Nepali politics - you need money to become a leader, you need money to support cadres, you need money to do politics, and you need even more money to contest elections.

In such a situation, the question is natural, isn't politics for those who don't have money? Has politics become a 'no entry zone' for the financially weak?

After the Gen-G movement, many new young people, people with new ideas, are trying to enter politics. But the main challenge for all of them is money. It seems that only ideas and sympathy are not enough to contest elections with the leaders of the old parties, money is also equally necessary. But don't those who don't have money not do politics? Does the status of politics not depend on ideas, honesty and service, but only on the bank 'balance'?

This has become an uncomfortable truth in today's Nepali politics. Politics has become a competition for money rather than a field of ideas and service. Whether it is the old generation or the new, those who honestly dream of changing the country but are not financially strong are finding it increasingly difficult to survive and stand in politics. This should not happen, but it is happening.

This problem is not limited to upper-level politics. The influence of money is also evident in student politics. Today, millions of rupees are spent on an election for an independent student union (SWAU). Hundreds of rooms are booked, 'automated messages' are sent, posters-banners, food, and transportation are all expenses. If so much money is needed to conduct student politics, it is not difficult to estimate how much money will be spent in national politics.

From starting a party to contesting elections, crores of rupees are needed. But money is not only needed during elections. Continuous expenses are required to maintain one's political existence, maintain dominance, and keep workers around one. Sometimes lunch has to be served, sometimes tea, and sometimes travel expenses. Can one become a leader without managing such things? In practical politics, the answer is usually 'no'.

Now let's move on to higher-level politics. Can you imagine how much it costs to run a national party? Let's look at the recent special general convention of the Nepali Congress and the general convention of the CPN-UML. Thousands of delegates had to be kept in hotels for 4-5 days. Where does that much money come from? Sometimes hall rental, sometimes meetings, sometimes publicity. Party office operations, employee salaries, social media management, vehicles, meetings, food, housing, security, everything is expensive.

The law sets an expense limit for every election, including for members of the House of Representatives, but that limit seems to be limited to paper. In practice, everyone knows that candidates have to spend many times more than that. Local elections are no longer 'less expensive'. It is a publicly accepted fact that millions and crores of rupees are spent to get, protect, and win tickets from ward chairmen to mayors.

Once the election begins, uncountable expenses such as vehicle expenses, lunch expenses, publicity expenses, expenses to workers, and other expenses are added. There is a huge gap between the expenses shown to the Election Commission and the actual expenses. In such a situation, how confident can we be that leaders who take loans and use property as collateral to contest elections are not corrupt?

This is why politics is slowly becoming a 'club of those with capital' today. Old and new leaders who have ideas, qualifications and a sense of public service but are financially weak are forced to stay outside without getting tickets. Whoever enters, is also under pressure to return the investment, and the cycle of contracts, commissions, access and abuse of power begins from here. Corruption in politics is not just a problem of personal character, it is a problem created by structurally expensive politics. In a country where transparency is weak, the more money one has, the more he is seen to dominate.

This is also the answer to the question of why many capable, educated and honest youth of the new generation are away from politics. A friend of mine did not contest even when he was sure of getting a ticket directly this time. Because, he lacks money, he says that he will enter politics after earning money after 10 years. This is just one example. The new generation has neither access to raising donations worth crores, nor the desire to form alliances with businessmen and contractors. There is a desire to do politics but no money to buy the status of doing politics. As a result, the same face, the same family, the same financial and power network keep repeating in the leadership.

Does this mean that those who have no money have never entered politics? Aren't there people in society who have never spent a single penny and have only done politics? There were and still are today. But the reality is that their political journey is very slow. Due to lack of money, even their own workers do not believe in it. In such a situation, it is not unnatural that money is the dominant force in current politics. Today, we are openly seeing people from business backgrounds entering politics. The new generation, who do not have financial resources, cannot easily enter politics. Even if others fund them with money, they will have to serve them for the rest of their lives because it is natural for those who give money to seek loyalty.

Some young people who entered politics after the Gen-G movement are adopting new methods, collecting donations of one to two thousand rupees through social media, campaigning less expensively, traveling in the same car, and publicly showing transparency by saying 'this much was spent today'. These efforts are commendable, but they cannot solve the systemic problem. The wound is very deep, and treatment is almost impossible.

This situation is dangerous for democracy. Even in the proportional system, the dominance of those with access is seen. In reality, the situation is that those who have more money have more access. When representation is determined on the basis of wealth, the parliament and the government become a club of the capitalists, not a mirror of the people.

In policymaking, the voice of the poor, farmers, workers, and marginalized communities is weakened, while the interests of the rich and powerful groups are at the center. If we really want to bring a new generation and new thinking into politics, then first of all, politics must be made cheap, transparent, and equal opportunity. This problem will not be solved without strict monitoring of election expenses, transparent public financing by the state, a digital and less expensive campaign system, and strengthening internal democracy within the party.