This is not an ordinary election. The Gen-G rebellion established that the Nepali state is in crisis. This election should be held to avert a major crisis. However, during the election campaign, there was no sign of the seriousness of the crisis being felt. Abuses were rampant. The hope that federalism would promote good governance also died. The democratic environment has been disrupted for four reasons. First, the political culture has been disrupted. The government is being formed with whoever it wants. There has been no program-based alliance and partnership.

Second, we have thought of democracy in the context of federalism. We have neither paid attention in the past to strengthening and organizing federalism, nor have we made it the agenda for this election. Third, the parliament itself has not become like a parliament. It has not become a place for policy making. It has only become a place for demolishing and building the government, for venting frustration and abuse. Fourth, the organs of the state are almost dead due to the grip of partisanship. They are there, but they are lifeless. Without the strength of state organizations, the presence of the state is not popular among the citizens. These four issues were not clearly made into the election agenda. The election was not even based on the agenda.

The discourse of populism

After the emergence of some candidates and parties in the 2079 local elections and representative elections, the discourse of populism advanced. It has become a lifeline for old parties. There is a historical context of populism in Nepal. Mahendra resorted to populism the most. Asian standards were talked about during the reign of King Birendra through classless society and land reform. The Congress said that after strengthening the market through an open economy after the change of 2046, everything would be fine. UML brought up many issues such as housing for squatters and work for unemployment in the first election. Later, Oli even said things like gas in every house, bullet train, etc.

The Maoists said that they would build Switzerland in the first election after the people's war. They said that they would end all kinds of oppression. They were all born and raised on the foundation of populism. Now the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) is facing this accusation. As the flag of populism has become powerful in politics as a whole, no other agenda has become necessary. That is why the parties also brought out their manifestos late. Because, they knew, the citizens' observation of the leader and the party is bigger than the manifesto. Now, the citizens are also observing through various technologies. That is why the parties were not in a hurry to bring out the manifesto on time. That is why they brought it late, the workers did not get the time to orientate themselves about it, and the workers did not get the time to reach out to the people and discuss it.

The Gen-G rebellion has become the main issue for new parties to seek votes. It is true that the manifestos of political parties are not based on study and research. They have been proving to be airy. Through what political means, how to manage finances to work, what kind of human resources are needed? What institutional form is needed? They are never considered. The citizens know this and the parties know it. But the practice of issuing manifestos continues.

The foreign broker's affair

There is another commentary in Nepal, run by foreigners. The Nepali Congress was accused of being run from abroad throughout the panchayat. In the run-up to the 2062/63 BS movement, the then Nepali Congress President Girija Prasad Koirala accused the current President Gagan Thapa of being run from abroad. After the Mahakali Treaty, the UML was accused of being run from India throughout the People's War. Even now, one leader has not stopped calling the other a foreigner's agent. Are all foreign agents in Nepal? Is the current election a competition between all agents? This is what it feels like when you listen to the leaders. When the right agenda cannot be presented in the election, the election itself becomes distorted and becomes technical. Will such an election avert the country's crisis? Or will it prolong the crisis. We are not holding elections because there is no parliament. There is a big gap between the depth of the crisis and the lightness of the election. This is the biggest problem.

Fear of community harmony being disrupted

UML Chairman Oli insulted Madhesh during the election. He is insulting Madhesh step by step. Elections are a means for the state to bind citizens together. Madhesh still believes that they have lost their self-respect. Citizen self-respect is to be increased through elections. But Oli accuses Madhesh of being 'scum'.

Nepal cannot move forward without respect and coexistence of diverse communities and cultures. He has not yet assimilated the fact that community cooperation and harmony should be the way forward. He did not seem aware that such expressions could influence the election. Such expressions are not about bringing about reconciliation through the use of the stick of law. This election does not seem to help much in the direction of making politics civilized. But political maturity is increasing in Madhesh, which is positive. 

Inclusion in kidnappings

Since the diversity of Nepali society cannot be addressed through the direct electoral system, the proportional electoral system was established. The proportional electoral system is for a community that is marginalized from politics. It does not have a voice in society. It is also less in terms of population. It is not visible in politics and society, the proportional system was arranged for them. But those who are more viral in society, those who are more visible, the proportional system was taken over by them. Rather than using proportional representation in the true sense, it was made a tool to increase votes in elections. Until yesterday, a person was in another party. But the practice of giving him proportional representation was followed to bring him into the party. The basic essence of the proportional system is that there are Dalits among Dalits. There are women among women. There is Karnali among Karnali. The system that was intended to ensure their presence in the policy-making process has been completely disrupted. This is what is seen. Even those who can compete directly have been placed in proportional representation.

Distribution of development

The trend of each candidate issuing separate manifestos is increasing. Those manifestos include bridges and roads. There is no talk of policy-making in those manifestos. Looking at the manifestos, it seems like the election is being held for the mayor or the parliament? The parliament election should be about policy-making. They should have told about their education policy. They should have told about their agricultural policy. Are small farmers or big farmers their priority? Community education or private education? Many such questions can be asked. But there was no debate on this.

One of the biggest problems in Nepal is that the parliament itself is not like the parliament. The election commitment itself has not given the parliament to be like the parliament. The commitment of the MP is in the development project. It is in the bridge. Similarly, the commitment demands the MP development fund. And, the MP is not a person who makes policies, but a person who donates development projects. Every candidate can issue a manifesto. But that manifesto must be linked to policy dimensions. Their policy stance must be clear. The assurance of distribution of development projects has already made the MPs stagnant before they are elected. They have already been distracted during the election process. That is why the parliament is almost dead. Traditional communists do not give much recognition to the parliament. But it is strange that even forces other than the Communists do not recognize the parliament. 

  The way forward – a policy-focused parliament

The first thing that needs to change after the election is the policy debate in the parliament. For that, parties should conduct capacity-building programs for their MPs on a thematic basis. It is the job of the concerned party to make the MPs able to clearly state their partisanship on almost all policy issues. After making the parliament a place for constructive debate, parliamentary committees should be involved in policy work. Parliamentary committees play a big role in the parliamentary system. Laws passed by the parliament should be studied in a multi-faceted manner and their policy aspects should be examined. But parliamentary committees are in the shadow of big leaders. Since the parliament is also in the shadow of big leaders and the parliamentary committees are in the shadow of big leaders, it is clear that there is no priority in policy work. 

What we need now is the creation of a new state. Now we are not talking about a new state after a new revolution. The issue of creating another big revolution and creating a new state is not the current context. Our current context is to create a new state by creating policies that are connected to the ground. The continuation of a state with the old behavior and character is no longer possible. Institutional development should be carried out through new policies. The institutions envisioned by the new policies should provide service with respect. A new relationship between the state and the citizen should be formed. A relationship based on self-respect. The institutions created by the new policy are autonomous.