What will the new government look like in the election atmosphere? Will Nepal move towards political stability or will the game of 'rotating chairs' of power begin like in the past? Will the movement for good governance and control of corruption become institutionalized? There is widespread concern about how the new government and parliament will address the sacrifices and essence of the Gen-G movement. Looking at many movements around the world, if immediate reforms are not initiated in the movement, the energy given by the movement will gradually weaken.

The main 'legacy' of the interim government led by Prime Minister Sushila Karki will be to hold elections on time and hand over power to the new government, guide the country towards stability, and bring the constitution and democracy back on track. 

This election, which is being held after the Gen-G movement, is of particular importance for the 57 percent of the population under the age of 40. This time, through the candidacy of the young generation and active participation in the elections, not only is there a significant presence in politics, but an environment has been created for a new energy and generation to lead the country, challenging the dominance of the older generation that has existed for the past three decades.

This interim government, focused on making the elections successful, also had the opportunity to prepare a strong foundation for good governance and control of corruption. A 'white paper' could have been issued by identifying areas for necessary amendments to the law or constitution, institutional reforms, and policy revisions. A clear 'roadmap' could have been prepared for the implementation of the 10-point agreement reached with Gen-G and discussions could have been held with all parties and stakeholders. By clearly identifying the problems and their root causes, concrete solutions to those problems could be determined.

In Bangladesh, the interim government itself had initiated governance reform and corruption control work in 11 sectors in accordance with the ‘spirit’ of the movement, which has given the new government a strong basis to institutionalize reforms. It had formed various commissions for electoral system, justice system, police administration, corruption control, administrative and constitutional reforms. It had taken forward banking and financial sector reform, modernization of Dhaka’s transportation, making the energy sector effective and accountable, measures to stabilize the economy, and new policies on foreign policy and economic partnership.

Three things are important for building a new Nepal, including good governance and corruption control: First, the stability of the new House of Representatives and the government. Second, the government’s priority in good governance and corruption control. Third, Nepal’s geopolitics and geo-economic path in the global political environment.

Even if the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Nepali Congress, or UML claim a majority, Nepal’s mixed electoral system reduces the possibility of an absolute majority. In such a situation, there are four options: a new or alternative force forms a government with the old small parties, all the old parties keep the new alternative force in the opposition, parties that agree on the reform agenda form a government or the first party runs the government even if it is in the minority, others provide support from outside. 

Three things are important for building a new Nepal, including good governance and corruption control: First, the stability of the new House of Representatives and the government. Second, the government's priority on good governance and corruption control. Third, Nepal's geopolitics and geo-economic path in the global political environment. Despite the rise of youth towards the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the new leadership of the Nepali Congress, what kind of election results will the parties that dominate Madhesh and Prachanda's NCP bring? This seems to depend on the relative number of seats of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Nepali Congress, and UML.  

If a high-level political culture cannot be established during the formation of the government, the country may again become a hostage to the old game of power. The previous time, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) had a mandate to remain in the opposition, but it tried to join the government. Similarly, Prachanda of the Maoists, who got 30 seats, sometimes played the game of becoming the Prime Minister with the Congress and sometimes with the UML, calling his number of seats a 'magic number'. Both these steps were against public opinion. 

In countries with a high democratic culture like Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland, due to the proportional electoral system, after the Second World War, except for one or two majority governments, coalition or minority governments are often formed and last for five years. The main reason for this is the development of a political culture of forming governments according to election results, where the politics of seizing power does not work like in Nepal.

The party that comes first in the public opinion either forms a majority government with parties that agree with its principles, policies and programs (especially the promises made in the elections) or runs the government even if it is a minority. And, other parties provide support from outside. The party that comes second sits in the opposition and plays the role of constructive opposition by becoming the first in the next election.

The development of a high-level political culture is necessary for political stability in Nepal. Regardless of which party comes first in the public opinion - the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the Congress or the UML -

It should be allowed to run a minority government alone or in collaboration with other parties that are in line with its policies, principles and election manifesto. Similarly, the second largest party needs to play a constructive role in the opposition.

It is also necessary to develop a political culture that gives a minority or majority government at least two years to work and implements the promises made in the elections. This is the spirit of the Constitution of Nepal, but the game of withdrawing the trust that the government has received before completing even six months has brought instability.

The new government needs to be formed on a common basis of implementing policies, programs and promises made in the elections. If the game of forming a government is to be played only by reaching the numbers, then the essence of governance reform, corruption control and building a new Nepal raised by the Gen-G movement will be attacked. If the old parties were only making announcements for the sake of announcements in the past elections, they institutionalized the tendency to keep power and power at the center after the elections.

This time, it is not a coalition that can only reach 137 seats to form a government in the House of Representatives, but a government should be formed by making a 'minimum common agenda' based on the election manifesto. The success of the government should be evaluated based on the implementation of this agenda. Looking at the manifestos of all parties, it seems that national consensus is needed in at least four areas: preparing a clear 'vision or blueprint' for the economy and development, radical reforms for good governance and control of corruption, necessary amendments in the implementation of the Constitution of Nepal, and strategic consensus on national security and foreign policy.

The new government needs to not just share dreams, but also prepare a 'blueprint' or 'vision' in practice for at least a decade of development and prosperity by covering areas such as education, health, infrastructure, production, employment, water resources, information technology, reducing growing economic and social inequality, and freeing the economy from foreign pressure.

In addition, it is necessary to advance the following constitutional reforms by consensus – from reforming the structure of the Constitutional Council to the need for a constitutional court, measures to make the provincial government stable and strong and the federal government agile and effective, reforms in the electoral system, a system to clarify the rights and duties of the three tiers of government, measures to give stability to the federal government and make the National Assembly effective. All these steps will enable the new government to move forward on the path of long-term stability, good governance and overall development.

For good governance, an effective plan of at least a decade is needed to make government services transparent, accountable, fast and technology-friendly and bring them in line with the standards of the 21st century public sector. However, at least these four things must be done to control corruption and reform politics –

First, the problem of increasing politicization in government agencies and appointments in Nepal needs to be addressed immediately. A bigger problem than attachment to a party or loyalty is the tendency to buy positions with money and to appoint people who are not qualified and experienced to positions solely on the basis of loyalty, which has pushed back the development of the entire country. In English, it is not just like the saying ‘Right Person at the Right Post at the Right Time’. All sectors like constitutional institutions, government bodies, teachers, employees, health workers, ambassadors, courts, authorities have fallen victim to politicization. This is the reason why corruption and unrest have flourished.

To solve the problem, it is necessary to analyze why politicization has occurred in every sector. Lessons that can be learned from other countries, necessary amendments to the constitution and laws, and measures to place competitive, experienced, qualified and relatively virtuous people in the right places are important. If institutions like courts and authorities stay away from politicization and develop institutionally, many other problems will be solved by themselves.

Nepal does have the Asset Declaration Act, 2013. However, it only fulfills the obligation of declaration. Currently, if the declared assets are not verified, there is no legal provision to impose fines or action if false information is submitted. There is no legal provision and institutional mechanism to bring under the scope of investigation if there is an unnatural increase in assets during appointment and when leaving office. Second, if there is a strict law on ‘conflict of interest’ (conflict between personal and national interests), the difference between doing politics for self-interest and doing politics for service will be clear. This will also bring control to the uncontrolled tendency to bring one’s own people to office. While about 120 countries in the world currently have laws addressing 'conflict of interest', Nepal does not have a separate effective law.  

Third, Nepal needs a strict law on the declaration of income, assets and expenses (asset declaration) of all persons appointed to high positions (such as ministers, MPs, secretaries, judges and other high-ranking officials). More than 130 countries around the world have such laws, which compel high-ranking persons to make an annual public declaration of their movable and immovable assets, bank accounts, investments in businesses, industries or shares, gifts and loans. Out of these, in about 50 countries, declared assets have been effectively brought under the scope of monitoring and investigation. For example, to verify whether the declaration is correct or not, to investigate if there is a big difference, to punish if it is false, and to investigate if there is an unnatural increase in assets.

Nepal certainly has the Asset Declaration Act, 2013. However, it only fulfills the obligation of declaration. Currently, if there is no verification of the declared assets, there is no legal provision to impose fines or action if false details are submitted. There is no legal provision and institutional mechanism to bring them under the scope of investigation if there is an unnatural increase in assets during appointment and when leaving office.