Door-to-door campaigning has been an important and integral part of Nepali electoral culture for the past decade. During elections, candidates or party representatives say that their goal is to visit voters' homes directly through the 'door-to-door' program, present their election commitments and plans, and listen to the people's complaints, demands, and expectations.

It is generally interpreted as an attempt to move from ‘party-centric’ to ‘people-centric’. The social, cultural and political significance of door-to-door campaigning is understood, but no one wants to talk about its economic significance. Face-to-face dialogue with voters is an opportunity for the public to ask questions directly, while candidates are the primary source of identifying local issues. From one angle, door-to-door democracy is seen. There are many who define the door-to-door program as the most vivid spectacle of Nepali democracy.

In the unannounced door-to-door competition, candidates are playing various games to outdo each other. Because during the election season, everyone’s language sounds sweet, words are sweet, and faces reflect the patience to listen to complaints. Voters know that no one returns to the door-to-door darshan after the election is over. ‘This time it’s sure’ – leaders come and join hands, saying it like an election slogan. This time too, all the old and new parties have enjoyed door-to-door campaigns. But, will the grievances still remain in the soil or will they be written down and noted? The question remains. But, the voter is the decisive judge here, who is welcoming us with a smile this time too. But, he is keeping count with his eyes.

In Barahathwa, Sarlahi, it was heard, ‘We have been waiting the same way in every election. We have become accustomed to counting the steps that come to the courtyard.’ Perhaps the problem is not that the leaders did not reach the village/countryside, the problem is that they did not touch the ground. They held hands, but did not listen to the pulse. We have many elections, and door-to-door campaigns are mandatory during each level of election. In a democracy, the issue of population census should be accepted according to the status of each level, given voice and taken ownership of the concerns. But Netaji does not take it on the basis of class differences. And, in this way, the tradition of listening to the complaints of the people and their minds only with the soil has been established. On the other hand, the people are also living with the feeling that both we and our pain belong to this same soil. How many more elections do we have to wait, when not only the feet of the leader, but also the ears and mind should be placed on the ground?

Villages and countryside come into the limelight through door-to-door visits. Netaji's digital management has become an indispensable part. Photos of senior citizens bowing down are circulated, while the new generation tries to get into the lens for selfies with Netaji. In the politics of the selfie era, the crowd has become the certificate. This time the assumption was that the people of the older generation complain, the new generation asks questions, but the majority are stuck in the 'selfie' fascination. For Netaji and the new generation, it has become more important than asking and asking questions - how many angles did the photo come from! In this new trend of 'selfie-election', Netaji feels that those who are in the photo with him also support him in voting. On the other hand, for the new generation, it is believed that those who are in the photo with Netaji will find all the solutions.

Those who consider the rise of the crowd as a new political direction have believed that the 'trending hashtag' is the way to victory. However, no one can be found who says that electoral democracy is nurtured not by trekking, but by trekking. What does that mean? How will they be addressed from the level of becoming a candidate? It is about how to take it and how to raise it. For those who do not have this knowledge, the bigger the crowd, the deeper the confusion. There is a Sanskrit word – ‘Punarnava’. Which means – to be made new again or to come back in a new form. In democracy, institutional renewal is necessary from time to time. In electoral politics, if there is no renewal of ideas and behavior, inertia will set in. An attempt to break that inertia will not be possible through selfie-politics.

Elections are that time when politics reaches the fields, barns, courtyards, and tea gatherings. Netaji goes door to door, makes promises in the local language. Because at other times, the countryside is just a ‘fact’, but as soon as elections come, the countryside becomes a decisive geography, and yesterday’s invisible people suddenly start becoming vote banks. It is said that the conscience of illiterate voters is the backbone of democracy. In electoral politics, it should be decided that politics does not come from the top down, but from the bottom up. However, this irony still persists. Door-to-door campaigning should become an ideal political slogan, Netaji should be initiated into the university of the grassroots. However, even though it seems emotional and imaginative, the rest of the time it is still far from reality. The door-to-door campaigning ritual has become such during the election festival, where lies have become public property. The importance of the grassroots level in democratic elections should be made decisive because the real pulse of democracy resides there. At present, the idea of ​​making the grassroots level effective only through caste equations, the influence of money (money) and immediate benefits is intense. Candidates are seeing this door-to-door campaigning in the psychology of competition to display their status and make it a phenomenon of entertainment. Here, rather than connecting with the voters, the vision is to identify the third party (which provides the vote management formula for a certain community, community, group). The work of the

representative is also that of a translator in a sense. How can the general public express their views in emotional, empirical and simple words? Whereas members of the House of Representatives are expected to have facts, legislative vocabulary and the language of policy proposals. Representatives should have the ability to turn emotions into provisions, complaints into policies and pain into proposals. Which candidate has how much money? Whose views are there? Who can become a minister? Rather than evaluating their qualifications, the new generation should be selected based on their ability to understand their problems and translate them into the parliamentary level. References that were not in the media until yesterday are now being voiced at their doorsteps. However, this alone does not make democracy vibrant at the grassroots level.

The problem was revealed in the public language – our traditional seeds were destroyed, farmers became dependent on the market, now even the seeds are no longer in the hands of the farmers. It takes years to get justice, the burden of debt increases every time they go to court. Educated youth are unemployed, searching for visas because they cannot find work in the country. There are no teachers in schools. There is no medicine in health posts. Resource force is needed in police stations. Pesticide farming has become an essential requirement. The problem is not that those in the competition did not hear, see or experience the problem. The problem is that they only grasped the tip and did not look at the root. Due to the new-old commentary and the magical branding of individuals, the issues and concerns of the village/countryside are concrete and local. However, local pain is being lost in symbolic speeches. It seems that the election has come to rely on immediate commentary and mathematics.

Farmers say – old seeds are gone. On the other hand, leaders who have won raise their voices – seeds should be easily provided to farmers in Parliament. Efforts are being made to make such spoken reels viral. The farmer thinks, I have told everyone who comes to ask for votes . Netaji thinks, I have raised it in Parliament, so watch this video . The gap that exists in between is the real vacuum of democracy . The issue of unemployment related to children of working age being busy with mobile phones all day is also a demographic dividend . A higher number of working age people means that more manpower can be involved in work, production and tax collection will increase, the ability to save and invest will increase, and poverty will be reduced . However, this is not understood in this way . All that is heard is the promise of employment somewhere .

Where is the raising and assurance in the totality of such complaints ? The path between the floor question and the House of Representatives is not easy, there are many roundabouts, there are speed breakers of rhetoric . Voters think – I chose my representative . On the other hand, Netaji thinks – I got plenty of issues . But when an elected person reaches parliament, how does he raise the issues of the people? What happens if he gets entangled in vague terms like ‘hunger’, nutritional imbalance and unemployment, ‘employment transition period’?

When people on the doorstep of an election campaign say ‘we need water’, it is not just a demand for a tap. Is this a demand for trust in the state? How do those who want to become representatives view it? Isn’t this a test of the state’s accountability? Is it simply a result of lack of resources, weak management, distribution, monitoring, lack of coordination between tiers of government, or natural exploitation? Or should it also be seen in conjunction with the question of the dignity of a sovereign citizen? When will the state understand that the issue of water has become another tragedy for the poor and deprived? It is necessary to look at the water crisis holistically. This much deep boring, this much tap connection data alone cannot compensate for it.