Article by Prakash Chandra LohaniA person who dares to be the Prime Minister of the country not wanting to engage in a double dialogue with the people may be a suitable state of mind and model for a country dominated by authoritarianism, but it is not digestible for an open democratic society.
What you should know
The election fever is increasing. The three major parties have already announced to the public who will be the Prime Minister from their party. But to become the Prime Minister, one has to become a member of Parliament as the first step. Among those struggling to cross this first step are famous personalities KP Sharma Oli, Balen Shah and Gagan Thapa.
It is clear that all three of them see each other as their main competitors. Moreover, KP Oli has even challenged Balen Shah in a formal debate. What is a bit surprising is that Balen, who is half his age younger than him, rejected KP's challenge. Balen recalled the massacre of Gen-G youths on 23 Bhadra as the reason for his rejection. Of course, no one can forget the incident of that day. But in addition, some elements outside Gen-G tried to destroy the state of Nepal in the name of Gen-G by taking advantage of the incident on the 23rd. But the helplessness and silence shown by national and local units at various levels to control it is also a big question mark in Nepali history.
It is clear that both KP Oli and Balen Shah are prime ministerial aspirants. Oli has been prime minister many times. Balen has created a special image for himself as a mayor. Even if these two men do not debate each other in public, it would seem appropriate to abandon the tendency to show their 'greatness' by insulting each other and be prepared to express opinions and discuss issues related to the people in various forums.
Public debate
The history of public debate and debate among those who hope and aspire to government leadership is linked to America. In 1858, two presidential candidates, Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas, had a face-to-face debate without any facilitator. Ultimately, Lincoln became president. However, the first formal and methodical debate was held in 1960 between Democratic Party candidate John Kennedy and Republican Party candidate Richard Nixon for president. The young Kennedy's debate style and manner helped him win.
The debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden in the US during the presidential election about a year and a half ago was also notable. Joe Biden's arguments and style in this debate damaged his image. And, an environment was created where he had to withdraw from the election. In Britain too, debates between candidates in the Prime Ministerial election are no longer a new thing.
Generally, if there is a debate between Oli and Balen, it seems that Oli should be on the defensive. During his reign, the situation of the country's internal politics and economic development has been disappointing. Corruption really flourished in the country under his umbrella. The culture of transforming politics into a money-making machine took root, and other major parties that became his allies and colleagues at different times also contributed to this work. Despite being in power repeatedly for years, Oli and his major supporting parties could not bring Nepal out of the 'gray list' of the international financial structure, i.e. a state oriented towards economic chaos. They left no stone unturned to bring Nepal Airlines Corporation to ruin under the slogan of tourism development. It has been ten years since Nepal Airlines has been able to get permission to fly to Europe. Whereas thirty years ago, Nepal Airlines provided direct service to Germany and the UK. Billions of rupees were spent on corruption in the construction of Pokhara and Bhairahawa airports. No one has dared to investigate the allegations ranging from investments in Cambodia to T-state in Giribandhu. The efforts of the Congress and the Maoists to fully contribute to Oli's history of governance have also been seen to be forever remembered in the story of the exploitation of Nepalis. In addition to all this, there are many questions about the role of Oli and the Congress government in the Gen-G scandal, which will certainly be an important topic in the debate between power aspirants.
In terms of personality, Oli is combative, open, and adept at verbally insulting and chasing his opponents. He is trying to establish his image as a nationalist. It is certainly a bold decision for Oli, who is embroiled in various scandals, to challenge Balen to an open debate.
As far as Balen is concerned, it is difficult to understand why he does not dare to debate with Oli, who is surrounded by scandals. As the mayor of Kathmandu, he has created an image that he has not and will not misuse public money for personal gain. This is his strong point in the eyes of the people. As the mayor, he has tried to establish himself as a 'mysterious' person. Seeing the possibility that not only his strong side but also his weak side could come before the people when he is very open, he has kept himself away from the people even as a representative of the people. And, it appears that he is looking for a strategy to continue the image of a mysterious personality by posting emotional and hysterical abusive tweets (X) in the middle of the night.
But the unwillingness of a person who dares to be the country's prime minister to have a two-way dialogue with the people may be a suitable state of mind and model for a country dominated by authoritarianism, but it is not digestible for an open democratic society. During his three-year rule, Balen has raised the level of cleanliness in Kathmandu and done justice to poor students by implementing managerial reforms in the education sector. These are successes and the people have also praised them. But the people also have many questions. The planning and implementation of the Kathmandu Metropolitan City, which has a budget of nearly 26 billion, has been disappointing. Not being able to spend even 50 percent of the capital expenditure is a failure of planning and implementation. Should the public be made clear about this or not?
Balen has not made much progress in many of the works he promised. During his talks with the public before the election, he had proudly stated his commitment to produce fertilizer and gas from waste. Why did the idea of using waste to make fertilizer disappear? Due to the inaction seen in this process, Kathmandu's garbage problem is sure to become serious within a few years. Did the Nepal government not allow this work to be done? If so, why did they not call on the people of Kathmandu to pressure the federal government? If the leader who threatened to burn Singha Durbar over a small matter stopped the people's work, why could the federal government not take the people into confidence about this?
How can we explain the incident of 24 Bhadra and the fire brigades from Patan and Bhaktapur when government buildings including Singha Durbar and the Supreme Court were burned, but the helplessness shown by Kathmandu is not something that a candidate who wants to help me become the Prime Minister should not speak about this? How justified is it for any party to remain silent on such questions and say, "We are the new power?"
Feeling of crisis
Today, the country is in crisis. The country has reached the state of a sukkul-gunda. Looking from the outside, it is a shambles. The coffers are full of foreign currency, but there is nothing but sukkul to sleep in, and even the sukkul is being torn apart. You don't have to go far. Tens of millions of youth are going abroad with tears in their eyes, unable to find work in the country. The people are crying due to the serious problem of embezzlement of savings in cooperatives. The government is in confusion due to lack of income. Now the government has reached a point where it cannot even pay the insurance fund. Foreign countries have now started openly expressing their dissatisfaction with Nepal's behavior. The incident of 24 Bhadra has raised the question of whose hands the country's security is now in.
Today, our world is slipping away from humanistic thinking and rule-based international relations. The wild style of "whoever hits, gets what he wants" is gradually gaining ground. In such a world, if a country like Nepal is to save its existence, it would be a big mistake to ignore this reality in the midst of internal abuse.
The main thing is that this election is not just an ordinary mid-term election. This election is only a very short-term measure adopted to manage the situation created by the incidents of 23 and 24 Bhadra. Prime Minister Sushila Karki's statements and style of governance have repeatedly made this fact clear. The real crisis will be seen after the election. In this environment, a long series of injustice, contempt and neglect that our political leadership, political structure and style of governance have done to the youth, farmers and workers of the country is before the country. To face this challenge, it is necessary to create a situation where a new chapter of loot and corruption does not begin in the country under the guise of the mid-term. In this process, it will be imperative to change some of the basic points of the constitution. That is, now in the constitution of Nepal, a new form of multi-party system should be established on the foundation of the monarchy and the supremacy of the people within the constitution, and a new chapter of comprehensive national unity and economic renaissance should be started. Therefore, it would be foolish to view the upcoming elections as merely a mid-term election to change the government. In fact, this election is also an opportunity to proclaim unity, hope, and change among all Nepalis. Those who aspire to be Prime Minister need to understand this reality soon.
