The old parties of the country have suffered huge losses in the elections held on 21 Falgun. Some parties have not even been able to have representation in the House of Representatives. None of the old parties could understand the Gen-G rebellion of 23 and 24 Bhadra as a wake-up call against them.

They did not even try to restore the trust that the common people had lost in them. Instead, they continued to show arrogance by saying that their dominance was in the villages. Even while nominating candidates for the elections, they gave opportunities to those who sat under the umbrella of the party rather than to the capable ones.

The practice of internal democracy within the parties that advocated democracy became extremely weak. This created a situation of conflict within the old parties. The leadership did not see the issue that factionalism within the party was undermining democracy, and the cadres did not consider it necessary to raise questions. The gap between the citizens and the parties became even deeper when the interests of the party were prioritized over the interests of the country and the citizens.

Elections are the backbone of democracy. Accepting the election results means respecting democracy. It means appreciating the citizens' votes. The old parties, which have been tested by the citizens for decades, were seen as failures in this election. Which can also be understood as an opportunity for the parties to self-evaluate. Now, the old parties have been forced to bring about reforms within themselves to increase the internal problems seen within them and the citizens' waning trust in them.

If we look at the referendum expressed on 21 Falgun, we can assess that the citizens are standing in favor of change. The same old parties of yesterday, the same old leadership, and the tendency to distance themselves from the people after the elections are closely felt, so this time they have handed over their precious votes to the so-called new parties. The voters were further disappointed because the old parties went to the elections with the old leadership. The new parties benefited from this.

The general public was dissatisfied with the frequent changes in government when the old parties were in power in the past. They used to raise questions not only about the party but also about the system and the constitution. The citizens were dissatisfied with the change of government based on personal and party interests rather than on the basis of policies, ideas, and principles. This exploded at the ballot box. The tendency to form alliances by making agreements that were limited to paper for power offended the new generation.

The young leaders of the old parties were also not preferred in the elections. The old leadership showed a tendency to be reluctant to transfer power and to suppress the voices of the young generation who tried to raise internal problems within the party. This also made voters angry with the old parties. Some of the young leaders of the old parties also tried to gain their positions by pleasing leaders higher than themselves, rather than organizing within the party. This did not create an environment of trust for the young leaders.

The parties, weakened by corruption, irregularities, and non-transparency, tried to mislead the citizens by saying that they had preserved the reputation of democracy. They had become accustomed to collecting the votes of the citizens in the same way. They tried to make the demands for good governance, corruption-free administration, and reform of the bureaucracy irrelevant and tried to win. However, their aspirations were not fulfilled.

The debate on whether the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) that emerged after the elections can fulfill the expectations of the citizens that the old parties could not fulfill has now gained priority in the mass media, newspapers and various online content. The new government is carrying the burden of the majority, which makes the decisions they make unilateral. This reduces the possibility of differences of opinion or conflict over decisions, as was the case during the coalition government. History is a witness to the instability of the government itself when the parties that were part of the coalition failed to take appropriate decisions.

An issue that continues to arise in the political landscape of Nepal is generational transfer. In the absence of generational transfer in the transfer of leadership within the parties, they are operating in the traditional way. Their role in policymaking should be increased by bringing capable youth within the party to responsible positions. This can increase the positive perception of politics among the youth. As soon as the old parties are mentioned, corruption, mismanagement, chaos, inconsistencies, irregularities and opacity have become an image. Therefore, it is now necessary for the parties to adopt zero tolerance against corruption and adopt transparent policies. Since the general public trusts the party based on its performance, emphasis should be placed on ethics and morality.

Freedom of thought within the party and participation of cadres in the decision-making process should be increased. Leadership should be selected through democratic methods by ending factions and sub-groups. Participatory decision-making and discussion should be encouraged. If the views and analysis of grassroots leaders and cadres are also given space, the decision-making process can become inclusive. It is often alleged that Nepali parties prefer power-centric politics over agenda-based politics. Therefore, they should focus on the agenda rather than power-centric politics and take the lead in solving development, prosperity, and the daily problems of the people. A mechanism should be created to listen to and immediately address the grievances of the people. The party's policies and ideology should be changed in line with the changing demands of society.

It was predicted that the political awareness of the general public would increase after the Gen-G rebellion. This was evident in the 21 Falgun elections. The Nepali people, who were yearning for change, stood up against the old parties because the old parties and leadership could not fulfill their aspirations. Even now, if the so-called old parties are not corrected, there is a risk that they will be confined to the pages of history.

The results of this election have opened the door not only to a change of power, but also to opportunities for new forces and for old parties to restore and reform their parties. In a democratic regime, not only the party in power is strong, but the role of the opposition is also equally important, so the old parties should be able to play the role of a constructive opposition in parliament. This will make the government more responsible and accountable.