(Candidates for the 21 Falgun elections are reaching out to the public with their manifestos. They are presenting their agenda. At this time, Kantipur is launching a special series 'Kantipur Debate: Citizens' Manifesto' to present the people's agenda to parties and candidates. You too can write a manifesto for this series, focusing on a specific area. We will give space to manifestos that are based on facts, figures, and logic.)

 The next few weeks will be about the ‘manifesto’. Parties will appear with manifestos in the election campaign. As soon as the candidacies were announced, the search for ‘agenda’ began. As the parties went to the elections, a necessary homework manifesto had to be prepared. As soon as the election process entered, the candidates and the commitment letter came together, and there was a debate on that. However, this time the parties chose ‘leader-centric’ ‘branding’ - big faces, slogans and only the election symbol. There were initiatives to chant the election symbol and make voters without the common people having to ask the question ‘what is the agenda?’. When the idea was formed, the ‘face’ was emphasized and the citizens were treated like consumers, not voters.

Manifestos are coming out, and they are flooding. However, in this era of digital marketing, there is a danger that these manifestos will become less ideological documents and more ‘billboard psychology’. Just as a hoarding board erected on the side of the road uses large letters, bright colors and unfulfilled promises to grab attention for a few moments, similarly, manifestos also try to appeal to the feelings and aspirations of the voters rather than their conscience.   The old parties and their past manifesto rituals were seen/experienced. However, there were many doubts about what the so-called new ones really were and what they were trying to do. The old ones are also under pressure to position themselves in a new light in the upcoming competition. The old parties, who had the mental image that politics would continue in this way until they were old, have experienced a sudden upheaval. That is why some parties cannot go back in their party life to correct decisions or move in a different direction. However, they admit that there are many aspects that can be understood, learned and overcome by looking back, and they are preparing for a different role. Although the pace is slow, the parties are working towards preparing manifestos.

Manifestos are coming out, and they are flooding. However, in this era of digital marketing, these manifestos are in danger of becoming less of an ideological document and more of a ‘billboard psychology’. Just as a roadside billboard uses large letters, bright colors, and unfulfilled promises to grab attention for a few moments, so too do manifestos attempt to appeal to the emotions and aspirations of voters rather than their consciences. They contain catchy slogans, emotional jargon, and dreamlike imagery rather than serious and long-term impactful policies, where voters are tricked into reading them, just seeing them and being impressed. Some are even practicing writing emotional letters rather than manifestos to captivate the masses. Like billboards, manifestos also present selective truths – what is meant to be shown is reflected, what is difficult and complex is reduced to a small font or omitted altogether. Those who prepare manifestos with billboard psychology as their basis understand common psychology. And, in the election frenzy, they weave a web of reassuring words that will not expand the voter base, but will be immediately satisfied. That is why this time, the manifestos are not about logic, but about impressions. Just like a billboard leaves an impression on the minds of those walking on the street.

This deeply hurts electoral democracy. When the manifesto is made into a propaganda poster instead of a policy ‘roadmap’, then politics will become just a show. Voters will be made consumers rather than citizens, and elections will become a competition to choose a ‘brand’ rather than a rational choice. Citizens themselves will have to be vigilant so that the manifesto does not look like a billboard. The task of making the tempting and provocative orators accountable by asking questions based on the manifesto has once again arrived at the grassroots level. The common citizen cannot do it by simply demanding a manifesto from the parties. This is not a ‘one price for every commodity’ purchase. The manifestos presented must be surgically prepared.

The manifesto is considered the most beautiful literature in politics. This manifesto is the most colorful literature in politics. And, it is said that it has accepted the most short-term truth. In the countryside, it is heard, ‘After the election, the manifesto goes where the old newspaper is.’ Some even make a more pointed comment, ‘If the promise were fulfilled, this manifesto would have been given a place in the appendix of the constitution.’ The election manifestos that have been displayed so far are posters of democracy, not ‘roadmaps’.

What role will be determined for which party in the voting process? It cannot be said right now. The people are wonderful, they are inexplicable. In today’s times, a manifesto is necessary. At the same time, it is also a dream of dangerous expectations. The manifesto has become such a document that the people dream after reading it. However, the parties that reach the government do not wake up. That is why the adage went – ​​everything is possible in the manifesto, only they do not implement it. The reason for this is that the manifesto was made a poster of electoral psychology. The manifesto was not a policy map, but a collage of expectations. And what will the parties do? Make promises during the election and make many excuses after coming to power.

Political science has considered the manifesto as a 'power signal' and a 'power contract'. It is an indicator of the readiness of the party concerned, a promise to build trust. It is a public written agreement. A self-accepted obligation. If we are to build a mature democracy, a political declaration will be a bridge towards an agreement. Are we not going to sit in the waiting room for a miracle and start considering this declaration as the final achievement? In this case, the declaration is renewable, but the responsibility always remains non-renewable. 

This time, there has been a comparative commentary on everything new and old. In such a situation, the manifesto must be churned out. There is a need for assertiveness on republicanism, federalism, inclusion, representation, identity, the role of the army, etc. This time, there is a comparative commentary on the new and the old. In such a situation, the manifesto must be churned out. There is a need for assertiveness on republicanism, federalism, inclusion, representation, identity, the role of the army, etc. The manifesto shows how a particular party views the state? Is the development model market-centric or society-centric? Does justice mean equality of opportunity or equality of outcome? The manifesto will be the written form of the party's particular idea of ​​state. It will also be considered a voter-party contract. Voters cast their votes and the party must appear determined to fulfill the election promises, for which the pressure is on and must be maintained. The manifesto is not a flashy, impossible promise. How possible or impossible are these promises made? It must be socially assessed.

The current 'personality branding politics' can be led to idea-based politics by a little discussion on the manifesto. Some elusive leaders who have emerged from the box should go through ideological friction. They should be forced to draw the imagined picture in their minds, not by reading it on paper. If this cannot be done and the masses do not show courage, the leader's hypnosis will remain heavy and the slogan will remain bright, but the ideas will seem like mere gossip. We have chosen parliamentary democracy. It is based on multi-party principles. The party is primary, the leader is its complement. The party's ideological commitment makes the party's face clear. Whenever the fog of contradiction of visiting Bhadrakali Palace and simultaneously calling it a soldier of good governance is lifted. Duality does not last in an open society. 

Writing a manifesto may be the will of a particular party, but it is never the request of the common people. It is not compassion for the people saying, "I will do this, I will do that." The particular party will light a torch on the possible leak of income through the manifesto. For whom will this be done? The reason for interpreting the manifesto as a social map is which class was given priority, which community was identified as the beneficiary, what was included in the 'national interest'? The use of round terminology is not enough. Those who are absent from the manifesto, look carefully. They are often on the sidelines politically, socially, and economically. That's all - the language of the manifesto should also be sociologically analyzed. Is it called poor or entrepreneur, welfare or empowerment, law and order or justice? The use of this language also helps to expose the specific party. Does the specific party consider the citizen as a 'subject' or a partner? The election promise-document also indicates whether its potential government will show mercy from above or will be recognized by authority from below? How does a certain party view past movements and their achievements? Some say - I will abolish the provinces, the simple meaning of which is - they are ignorant of the formula for managing the diversity of Nepali society. Some raise the issue of constitutional monarchy, such people have tried to ignore the sovereign conscience and power of the Nepali people. This letter is not just an electoral process, it should also be considered the grammar of society and potential power. A few pages drawn in bulk by a certain reader contractor is not a manifesto, it is a window into the soul of a specific party.

How to view the manifesto? This constitution is a party mirror that understands and sees democracy, a diverse society, nationality, solidarity, and progress. It should be classified and analyzed based on its political character. What is the ideological, favoritism, managerial, identity-representation, and symbolic form? What is the long-term vision for the state, society, and citizens? Is it filled with emotional language, attractions such as immediate benefits or distribution-oriented budgets, and free availability? Is it only the language of facts, goals, roadmaps, and reforms? How has the issue of respect and representation come about by emphasizing caste, religion, language, region, and community? Is there big talk, but unclear promises? Has it been written for rituals by artificial intelligence? Have party promises and slogans from other countries been copied verbatim? Has any deadline been drawn for accountability? What kind of process of social dialogue and monitoring has been said to be adopted? In a democracy, party resolve and dreams should be sought rather than the whims of a particular leader. Based on this, the power strategy of a particular party is outlined in the manifesto. It reflects the mentality of the party. It is a party-specific oath taken before the citizens. Therefore, parties should bring a manifesto seriously, not in a hurry. Until the manifesto is taken seriously, electoral politics will remain a game of 'ha-hu'.

In a democracy, elections are a constitutional dialogue between the citizens and the party. No party or candidate can escape from this. As soon as the manifesto is issued, its public debate begins. A party or leader is free to put themselves in a collective debate, but there is no exemption from public discussion on their manifesto. A collective debate is needed during elections. And, the most formal, public and written form of this dialogue is the election manifesto. A manifesto is not the autobiography of a party or candidate, but its future picture. It shows - in which direction will the society, economy, governance and the lives of the citizens be taken after that party comes to power? In its absence, elections become a person-centered competition, where faces are discussed instead of ideas, emotions instead of slogans, and identity instead of commitments. And, when does the citizen not realize that he has been transformed into a crowd? Is the manifesto just a collection of promises or is it also linked to accountability?

The manifesto is not the autobiography of a party or candidate, but its future picture. This shows -  In which direction will the society, economy, governance and citizens' lives be taken after that party comes to power? In its absence, elections become a person-centered competition, where faces are discussed instead of ideas, emotions instead of slogans, and identities instead of commitments.   In a democracy, citizens are not just innocent voters, they are the real controllers of power. Therefore, the written promises expressed through the manifesto are subject to questioning. In the past and in the future, we can hear that the situation changed, geopolitics did not seem to be favorable, resources did not seem to be able to cope, and coalitions were forced. Therefore, policy clarity is needed. When arguing about the manifesto, moral restraint should be placed on such excuses. The emptiness, ambiguity, or unfulfillable promises in the manifesto mean that a certain party has failed to correctly assess its national strength, the state of the country, and the international situation. In this way, this affidavit should be made a report card of party incompetence. This is the only way to eliminate ritualistic tendencies. 

In a democracy, elections present alternatives. Basically, it is an election of alternatives. If all parties copy-paste manifestos from here and there, repeat slogans, and come up with similar showy plans, on what basis will voters make a decision? What are the similarities in their views on education, health, employment, agriculture, alternative economy, social justice, federal structure or legal system? What are the differences? Where is the voice of commonality? It is impossible to cast a vote in a hurry without exploring it. 

The manifesto establishes - how will a certain party build Nepal? If the manifesto is not viewed in this way, it becomes just a propaganda pamphlet, which slowly fades away even when questioned by a large number of media outlets. A time frame, resource management, and action plan are needed. Without this, make big promises, but why not explain - where will the resources come from, how to make service delivery effective, what will be the priorities? Building a nation is not just a matter of emotion. It is not just a matter of strong willpower, it requires a clear vision.

The manifesto must be based on ground reality. It is not a daydream. It must be clear with each promise - when, how, and by what means will it be fulfilled. The current manifesto must be inclusive. Society is not built only by the presence of the dominant, nor can it be sustained by the majority alone. The wishes of all - Dalits, indigenous people, the poor, the deprived, minorities, women, young people, and senior citizens - must be addressed. The manifesto needs a concrete and respectful policy for Madhesis, Tharus, and others, and mere symbolic lines are not enough. The manifesto must be within the scope of the values ​​​​enshrined in the constitution. Equality, freedom, social justice and federal structure - these are not just words, they are the backbone of Nepali democracy, the basis of reciprocity. 

Those whose manifestos seek to undermine it must reveal their intentions to the people. Was the manifesto prepared by a team of hired experts or was it prepared with flower petals for the 'face-saving' of the chairman or senior leader, or did the views that were being raised from the ground up in the internal structure of the party get more 'street light'? The process of making the manifesto also makes it credible within and outside the party concerned.

The past movements are not an impulse against the state, but a document of the state's injustice. A voice silenced by bullets is never resolved, it is only silenced. The electoral scenario is not within the scope of development versus backwardness, but is deeply connected to history, social structure, displacement-migration, diversity, education and the quality of governance. Nepal has seen/suffered various manifestos through the precious elections of the last decades. The problem here is not a lack of resources but a lack of state capacity. Plans are made, but they do not come down to earth - those who drink drink, they say, those who live live. How much money is left by the time you reach a remote village with a hundred rupees left from Kathmandu? Some people swallow it, chew it and digest it on the way. Those who manage to digest it are belching and may be asking for votes from us/you, wearing the masks of new and old parties. How to ensure impunity and good governance? Some talk more about good governance, while others talk less about other components of democracy! Some shout 'democracy' more, but their voices are thin on impunity and investigation. The people should seek democratic maturity as a whole. 

If the people can improve their memory, who said what, did what, and when? It will be revealed. If it changes, why? Why did the situation of suffering and correction come to this? It must be asked. Elections are not a political game to give the people opium and divert them from the main issues. The common people must understand this. There are many things hidden in the manifesto, which not everyone may understand. However, in a broad sense, the kind of democracy he wants, which makes his vision of Nepal clear. 

Therefore, elections are not said to be a test of democracy, but a test of the people's ability to forget. Past movements are not impulses against the state, but documents of the state's injustice. A voice silenced by bullets is never resolved, it is only silenced. Where there is repression instead of dialogue, the funeral procession of democracy has already begun. Is the public ready to refresh its memory in this election? So far, the inclusivity that does not give power by showing its face is a satire of democracy. Federalism and inclusivity have become decorations, not rights.