This is one of the many positive outcomes of the Gen-G movement. However, the youthfulness of the House of Representatives should be reflected in its practices and decisions. Even in the face of a significant representation of younger MPs based on age, parliamentary activity should reflect expertise and maturity.
We use Google Cloud Translation Services. Google requires we provide the following disclaimer relating to use of this service:
This service may contain translations powered by Google. Google disclaims all warranties related to the translations, expressed or implied, including any warranties of accuracy, reliability, and any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and noninfringement.
After the Gen-G movement, generational change has been established as a strong political call. Although the pressure for generational change increased at that time for the transformation of old parties, in reality it is an indispensable issue for rejuvenation in every organ of the state. When such a matter is not possible through internal processes and methods, it is possible through external influences. The recent elections have been seen as such an external influence.
This has made the parliament relatively ‘young’. Many old faces that have been seen in the parliament for a long time will not be seen in the upcoming House of Representatives. On the other hand, many new faces who have not participated in any political process before are going to be seen in the House of Representatives. This situation is also one of the many positive results of the Gen-G movement. However, the youth of the House of Representatives should be reflected in its practices and decisions. Even in the situation of significant representation of young MPs based on age, expertise and maturity should be reflected in parliamentary activities.
Among the elections held under the current constitution, the average age of MPs represented through direct elections in the Parliament formed in 2079 was 56 years. There were 62 MPs above the age of 60. This year's election, however, has produced a parliament that is quite the opposite. Of the 165 elected MPs, 13 are over 60, while 9 are 39 or younger. The average age has also decreased by 11 years.
Not only representation, but many leaders who have been in power in the state and party have been defeated by the youth. For example, four-time Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, 74, was defeated by 36-year-old Balendra Shah. Shah himself was the party's declared candidate for the future Prime Minister. Similarly, 75-year-old Shekhar Koirala, an influential leader of the Nepali Congress, was defeated by 31-year-old candidate Rubina Acharya. There are many such examples.
For a long time, Nepal's parliament became the center of power manipulation. Although the principle is to represent the sovereignty of the citizens, the parliament has become nothing more than a helpless shadow of the government. Instead of holding the government accountable to itself, it seemed as if the parliament itself was accountable to the government. It was neither able to accelerate the law-making process, nor was it able to hold serious debates and discussions on issues of public interest. Among the citizens, the activities of the MPs became like a 'meal for digesting allowances'.
Because it was seen that the MPs went to the parliament only to appear. Even when discussions on serious issues were going on, the sight of the empty seats in the parliament was heartbreaking for the citizens. MPs have rarely heard of serious debates on issues of regular concern to the people such as sewage, drinking water, education, health, bridges, roads, and transportation. Even though these issues are raised occasionally during zero hours, the MPs themselves say that they have not received a response from the government. Therefore, the challenge of increasing the weight and effectiveness of the parliament has been there for a long time.
This time, the extensive change in the age group of MPs elected through direct elections can be expected to make the parliament multifaceted. Parliament should now become a common place of enthusiasm and maturity. It should speed up and stimulate the parliamentary process. First, citizens should be made to believe that parliament is a powerful organ that represents them. People should be made to feel that parliament is a place where their voice is heard. If there is a change in the way issues are entered, discussed, and worked in parliament, people can increase their affinity for parliament. If parliament can become a strong bridge between the people and the government, its effectiveness will increase.
The new generation has new hopes. It has a new style. Because they are familiar with new truths. They are aware of the language and future of the new generation of society. The new generation of parliamentarians are aware of what today's generation thinks, how they think, what expectations they have of our institutions, what laws they want, and what policies and methods they want to utilize their capabilities. For example, now parliamentarians can give more importance to AI-related policies. They can sensitively raise the issue of algorithms. They can take specific initiatives on climate change issues. Information and technology issues can become the main agenda of the House. Such issues were affecting society but were not a priority for Parliament in the past. The House had distanced itself from the citizens because the issues that touched the new generation and the priorities of the Parliament were different. Now the distance may be reduced.
