The country is gripped by election fever. Social media is filled with predictions of victory and defeat and propaganda.

All kinds of leaders/parties, new and old, are on the same strategy to win the election. Naturally, as always, in the electoral competition, one wins and many others lose. However, the real question of this time's election is not just which leader or which party wins or loses. The central question is, will the country win this election? Can the election overcome the political/constitutional transition? And, can this election institutionalize the people's expectations and issues of change?

The reason why these questions have been raised is that the Gen-G street protests and the subsequent chaotic destruction have plunged the country into a serious political/constitutional transition. A smooth and safe transition is the main issue at the moment.

However, transition is not a new experience in Nepali politics. Transition has been the destiny of Nepali politics. Before one political transition ends, another one follows.

The beginning of the modern political period in Nepal is considered to have been after the 2007 revolution. Since then, Nepali society has gone through transition many times, reaching the Gen-G movement. It seems as if every transition period after the movement has come as a golden opportunity for change. It also raises hopes and expectations for change at the public level. However, when the leadership fails to institutionalize the issues of change, political instability and dissatisfaction persist. People's expectations are shattered. People become angry and raise another trumpet of rebellion for change. As a result, the country is once again trapped in a transition period.

The political transition period after the second people's movement of 2062/63 lasted for almost a decade. The transition period was prolonged due to the tug-of-war of bringing the peace process to a logical conclusion and drafting a new constitution. After many challenges and ups and downs, the transition period was considered to be over after the promulgation of the constitution in Asoj 2072. Many expected the country to move forward on the path of peace and prosperity. It was also believed that a new horizon of politics would open up by overcoming instability and despair. However, within ten years, Nepali society is once again playing catch-up with another transition period.

The country is currently in a new episode of the transition period after the Gen-G movement. This transition period is the result of the dissatisfaction and anger that Gen-G has poured out on the streets. It is a question mark over the competence and efficiency of the status quo political leadership that sees everything but power as an illusion. It is also a breakdown of trust in them. The Nepali people achieved democracy through a tough people's struggle. There is a history of democracy being established/reestablished every time on the strength of bloody people's movements. Our democracy is caught in a roundabout cycle of achieving political achievements through movements and struggles, falling into a transition period, losing achievements, struggling again, and transitional politics. Why are we not overcoming transitional politics? Why does the Nepali political leadership repeatedly fail to institutionalize the issues of change? And, why does democracy always remain at risk and in transition? It is necessary to delve into these questions while queuing up to vote in elections with the desire for political stability and prosperity. This time, this column will focus on these questions.

The destiny of today's Nepali politics is as stated by a Spanish political scientist, Juan J. Linz. He used to say, ‘Revolution is easy, institutional democracy is difficult.’ This is what leftist leader Madan Bhandari had also said. In an address after coming to public notice as the then General Secretary of UML in the open political environment of 2046 BS, he had said, ‘The hardest thing is to institutionalize political change.’

The failure to institutionalize political achievements is not just now, it began in 2007 BS. After the revolution in 2007 BS, the Rana regime ended and democracy was established in the country. That was a historic turning point in Nepal’s democratic movement. However, there are debates about how complete a ‘revolution’ it was. Political scientists say that such mass struggles and movements are revolutions that can bring about qualitative transformation in all aspects of the political, economic, and social conditions of society. However, the ‘revolution’ of 2007 BS ended in an agreement with the Ranas. Secondly, it transformed Nepali society politically, but failed to transform it economically and socially.

Third, the tendency to be more power-oriented than political ideas and programs reared its head. It took eight years for the parliamentary elections to be held. In the meantime, 8 governments were formed. In other words, Nepali power politics began to fall victim to instability from that time.

Fourth, the division of power in the Rana-Congress joint government formed after 2007, factionalism within the Congress, and the sowing of conflict within the Congress also began immediately. Fifth, Nepali politics is also affected by geopolitical maneuvers and interests. The influence and infiltration of domestic and foreign power centers in our internal politics also began at that time. In essence, even after the change in 2007, the Rana administrative structure remained alive in the state structure. Even though power was transferred, the transformation of the governance system could not be felt at the people's level. The parties became internally weak. A permanent constitution and strong institutions could not be developed. Party factionalism, increasing conflict between the court and parties, and unstable governments were obstacles to institutionalizing political change.

At that time, the ambitious King Mahendra used the 'whip' on democracy. He abducted the young democracy and imposed autocracy. For thirty years, the country remained under the non-party Panchayat system. This system tried to foster development and stability. It also developed some physical infrastructure and expanded the administration. However, the people, deprived of basic political rights, did not experience change and became dissatisfied.

That dissatisfaction was expressed in the student movement of 2036 BS. Addressing the dissatisfaction, the Panchayat regime held a referendum on whether to have a multi-party or a reformed non-party system. Although it gave limited rights to political choice, the referendum held during the reign of the then government only wanted 'reforms'. The abducted political rights were not returned. However, after the historic people's movement of 2046 BS, democracy was restored. Once again, political achievements were achieved through tough political struggle. When the Congress and the Communists jointly protested, the autocratic Panchayat system led by the king was forced to compromise with the agitating parties.

After the political changes of 2046 BS, the underground and banned parties found an open environment. The role of the autocratic monarchy was reduced and remained within the limits of constitutional monarchy. However, the conflict and friction between the party and the court continued. This was revealed on the surface when the 'Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal, 2047' was issued. One example is the context of the court, not being satisfied with the draft constitution presented by the Constitution Suggestion Commission, pressuring the court to include some provisions it had drafted itself in the constitution. Thus, on the one hand, there was party-court conflict, and on the other hand, factionalism and lust for power within the party. The leaders of the positions and power-centered parties were ready to make any compromise for the position, forgetting the past of political struggle and sacrifice. Internal democracy was weakened by the conflict of ego, rivalry, position, power, and opportunity between rival leaders, and the Congress majority government formed after the 2048 general election collapsed without completing its 5-year term due to its own reasons. Then, unstable power-oriented politics began in the name of a joint government and coalition culture. Power-oriented politics, increasing misrule, geopolitical maneuvering, and the Maoist violent rebellion, these many factors became obstacles to institutionalizing change.

Then, another ambitious King Gyanendra appeared on the political scene. After the palace massacre, Gyanendra, who coincidentally became king after the royal palace massacre, imposed an autocracy in the name of being creative, adopting the path of his father Mahendra, and another political struggle emerged. This time, the parliamentary party and the Maoists, who were waging a violent rebellion, came together and fought against the autocracy. The second people's movement not only limited the role of the monarchy, but also formally bid farewell to it after some time. The political transition after the second people's movement brought many opportunities. First, the restoration of the hijacked democracy. Second, there was a break in the decade-long violent politics. Due to which the civil society was excited about the establishment of peace. Third, the constitution was being written by the Constituent Assembly.

Amidst many challenges, the country moved forward on the path of a federal democratic republic through the Constituent Assembly. The Constituent Assembly, which comes once in a lifetime, came twice. Finally, this assembly made the constitution. In other words, some political achievements were institutionalized. After the second people's movement, there were structural changes in the state system. The monarchy ended, the establishment of a federal republic, inclusive, proportional representation, assurance of periodic elections, and a free press are historical achievements of Nepali politics.

The historic people's movement of 2046 BS had limited the role of the monarchy. After 2063 BS, this institution was completely overthrown. With the establishment of a republic with proportional, inclusive democracy in the country, the country moved forward on a politically progressive and progressive path. Many said that the next generation would not have to make political movements. Now the country has set out on the path of economic prosperity. However, despite this, economic and social transformation could not be achieved in practice. Parties became like private companies of a few leaders. Internal democracy within the parties became weaker. Misgovernance became so rampant that it polluted the entire politics. Not only corrupt and misgovernance leaders, but society also became suspicious of leaders who were not involved in controversial cases.

It is not without changes and transformations that come with time, but many rights have become paper-based. Not only is there a delay in the provision of basic services to the people, but it is also due to irregularities and access. The situation of young people leaving the country due to lack of employment opportunities is increasing. The new generation is angry because the political leadership has not been able to fully meet the expectations of the people on issues of employment, justice, and good governance. Even though politics has changed, the same aristocracy has dominated the ruling power and style. Democracy has not been able to connect with ordinary people's lives. The Gen-G generation has expressed its anger on the network and on the streets due to the deep gap between qualifications and opportunities, institutional laxity, and the epidemic of corruption.

The Gen-G explosion was not just an expression of the anger of a generation. It was also a sign of declining trust in the state. Against this backdrop, the government has announced parliamentary elections on Falgun 21. In this sense, this election should not be seen only as a process of regular power competition. It should also be seen as an opportunity to overcome the political/constitutional transition that arose after the Gen-G movement. When the issues of change are limited to the streets, political instability deepens. Therefore, elections are an important means of institutionalizing the issues of change. However, the question arises again, will this election be able to overcome the transition period after the Gen-G movement and institutionalize the issues of change that have arisen in this process?

The initial election scenes are not pleasant. The main arena of this time's election competition seems to be more through technology than on the streets, doorsteps or mass meetings. A great battle is taking place between facts and lies, truth and disinformation, in this election. There is a clash between those who are in a hurry to do something and those who have a vision and those who are trying to cover up the opportunity by covering it with the veil of favoritism. It is difficult for a common voter to distinguish between right and wrong. On one hand, old political parties are in the elections. Some have improved and some have also raised hopes. Some are happy with the status quo and have entered the electoral front claiming that there are some new options. But, why and how are they new? New faces or new thinking and working style? It is not clear. And, there is another big party, which has jumped into electoral politics on a whim. Its goal is to win the election and seize the opportunity. Among these various trends, who will the voters choose? Will they choose a strategically focused party or character to win power, or will they choose a party and character with the ability to use transitional politics as an opportunity? Or will they choose a leadership that can address the questions raised by the Gen-G movement, change, institutional development and instill confidence in the future? This time, the voters' conscience will be put to a great test.