At this time, the parties are intensifying their election campaigns by putting the Prime Minister's face forward. Meanwhile, the common man is asking on social media, "Where is the manifesto?"

However, there is still a tendency to view election manifestos as packages of promises to entice voters. But the political situation that Nepal is going through today, where there is institutional weakness, coalition uncertainty, and growing confusion among citizens, has indicated that the meaning of the manifesto needs to be redefined. Citizens are looking for answers not only from leaders, but also from the system. How is power used? Who controls power? How is the leadership or government held accountable if it fails? Questions like

The Melamchi water brought by Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, the Switzerland built by Prachanda, and the railways built by KP Oli used to overshadow party policies. But times are different now. Now, the manifesto should not contain the aspirations of the leader, but a clear commitment to the way of governing. A party that claims to govern in a parliamentary system must make its vision of collective leadership, institutional discipline, and the supremacy of parliament clear through the manifesto.

 A concrete commitment is needed regarding the role of parliamentary committees, limited use of ordinances, and the supremacy of the legislature. Parliamentary supremacy
Looking at the election debate, it seems as if this election is being held only to choose the prime minister. There is no major difference of opinion on this, yet many say that parliamentary supremacy should be maintained. Nepal has a democracy based on a parliamentary system, where the supremacy belongs to the parliament, not the individual. This reality should be reflected in the manifesto. This is also the responsibility of the parties. The issue raised by the Gen-G movement was more about good governance than system change. Therefore, it is not interesting to promote games on the system. It is necessary to move away from the discourse of ‘What will I do if I become the Prime Minister?’ and instead look at ‘How will the government be run through parliament?’ The manifesto should reflect how this is ensured. Looking at the last three terms, the parliament has not been effective. The parliament was not able to get business and the attendance of MPs was also low. Therefore, the parties should be proactive in making the parliament effective.

The manifesto should clarify how the parliament can be empowered as an effective institution that monitors the executive branch. A concrete commitment is needed on the role of parliamentary committees, limited use of ordinances, and supremacy of the legislature. While attracting voters by announcing the prime ministerial candidate, the manifesto should give a clear message that the prime minister is fully accountable to the parliament and the party. The center of policymaking should be the parliament, and the executive branch should be its implementer.

The manifesto should also clearly establish that lawmakers are not development contractors or project-distributing cadres, but their main role is to make laws, debate policy, and monitor the executive.

Collective leadership, not individual-centered
The complaint that power is becoming more concentrated in Nepali politics is not new. The issue of good governance has not found a place in politics for 20 years because of the limited number of individuals. But the manifesto could be the first document to solve this problem. A credible manifesto should clarify how decisions are made collectively within the party and the government. The manifesto should mention how policymaking, selection of ministers, and evaluation of government performance are done. Now we have no choice but to strengthen the process. 

How does the party monitor the government's work? What is the role of party MPs? If these questions are answered before the election, there is no need to look for an excuse to get a discount later. The party can also be moved at the right pace. Democracy depends not on the popularity of individuals, but on the institutional structure. We must be able to explain that democracy depends not on individuals, but on the system.

Clarity of governance and intention, not promises
The basis of good governance is clear rules, inclusive decision-making processes, and equal legal treatment. The manifesto should clarify how to ensure rule-based governance, not arbitrary policy decisions. Now, citizens cannot be convinced by big slogans and attractive promises alone. What they need is clarity on how governance works. The manifesto should provide a roadmap for how policies are made, how they are implemented, and how they are reviewed within five years. Otherwise, it will just be a ritual.

The issue of how the balance of power between the executive, legislature, and judiciary is maintained should be clear.  After all, all the parties that have entered the election are all determined to win a majority. But it would be better if the manifesto also includes a commitment on how to ensure a full term of parliament, accepting the possibility of a coalition government. The need of the day is to present political instability as a manageable challenge, not a destiny.

The manifesto should define good governance as an institutional practice, not a slogan. The issue of how the balance of power between the executive, legislature, and judiciary is maintained should be clear. Since abuse of power increases when the roles and boundaries between the Council of Ministers, ministries, and agencies are unclear, a clear division of authority and responsibility should be included as a commitment in the manifesto. Issues such as how the independence and effectiveness of constitutional bodies such as the Authority, the General Accounts Office, and the Public Service are ensured, and how they are protected from political interference should be included as a commitment in the manifesto. In addition, the issue of good governance is meaningless without a clear action plan on how to regularize transparency, conflict management, the 'merit' system in public appointments, and the practice of making information public.

Transparency in the use of public resources is the center of good governance. The manifesto should clearly state the open budget process from budget formulation to expenditure implementation, complete transparency in the public procurement system, and mandatory public hearings in large projects. The manifesto should embrace the view that corruption control is possible through system  reform, not fear of punishment.

Good governance is not possible without citizen participation. How citizen suggestions are taken in policymaking, how public consultation is institutionalized from the local level to the federal level, and how disagreement and criticism are made part of the democratic process, these issues should be included as commitments in the manifesto.

Measurable commitment

The manifesto is not a wish list, but a social contract between citizens and political parties. Therefore, it should mention clear priorities for the first 100 days, a concrete action plan for five years, and a basis for measuring progress. Effective implementation of federalism, coordination between the federal-provincial-local levels, and a clear and measurable commitment to the independence of the judiciary have become mandatory today. Otherwise, the manifesto is bound to be limited to language like ‘will be’ and ‘will be done’.