The leaders and supporters of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) are very happy after the election results on Falgun 21, which is natural. After the RSS, which is expected to become the largest party or get a simple majority, won about two-thirds of the seats, it is estimated that the opposition in parliament will now be weak. Looking at the

numbers, the Nepali Congress is certain to remain the main opposition. The columnist himself was a witness to the unity with Balen and Kulman. At that time, RSSP President Ravi Lamichhane had said, ‘We are becoming so big that perhaps the weakest opposition in history will be outside, I don’t want that.’ Although it is natural to speak like this in excitement during the election campaign, looking at the date of the first meeting of the parliament after the publication of all the election results, the RSSP cadres and leaders feel, ‘There is no opposition in Nepal anymore, the opposition has become as weak as in India.’ We became very powerful, Congress-UML-Maoist became very small parties.' However, the RSP has made the old established and until now strong parties in the parliament, Congress-UML-Maoist, defensive. The opposition seems weak in the parliamentary arithmetic of the House of Representatives. And, the RSP does not have a presence in the provincial government and local government either.

In a democracy, elections are held, the government changes, and games of chairs continue in the parliament. But, have we ever thought - who is the real opposition to the government? Are they the political parties that sit in the second wave by winning fewer seats in the parliament? The answer is clear - no. In any democratic system, the people are the 'ultimate' and eternal opposition to the government. Congress, UML, Maoists, RPP, Shram Sanskriti Party may be small, but the ranks of the people are not small. In a democracy, the opposition party theoretically monitors and warns the government.

However, in the context of Nepal, opposition parties are often in a hurry to reach power. Therefore, the role of the real opposition has been played by the people. Looking at the political history of Nepal, one truth is repeated over and over again - the government changes, the face changes, but the permanent opposition is the people. This is not an artificial argument - it is a reality proven by facts, history and the present. From the people's movement of 2046, the movement of 2062/63, the subsequent struggle for the constitution to the Gen-G movement of 2082 - the driving force of change in Nepal has always been the people. Since 2046, 32 governments have changed in the country and no government has been able to complete five years. On average, the lifespan of a government is only about 9 months. However, with the close to two-thirds of the public opinion that the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has received, it should run the government for 5 years. Unemployment, corruption, inequality and service delivery problems are not solved immediately, but the people have voted for 'immediately, quickly'.

We know that the Gen-G movement was not only the cause of dissatisfaction of the youth of the Gen-G age group. The old regime, leaders and politics had blocked many things. The youth were looking towards the world at a fast pace, while the pace of Nepal's development was slow, which made the youth agitated from within. The elections of Falgun 21 proved once again that the people are not just voters, they are the final deciding force.

The recently concluded general elections of 2082 and the events preceding them have established a new standard in Nepali politics. The Gen-G movement of Bhadau not only brought down the government of the then Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, but also shook the traditional political syndicate that had been entrenched for decades. The youth who took to the streets against the ban on 26 social media platforms and increasing corruption were not activists of any political party, they were just conscious 'opposition people'. The Rashtriya Swatantra Party (RSWP) has won a clear majority by winning 182 out of 275 seats. This result is not just an electoral victory or 'popularity', but an institutional expression of public anger. The people wanted to see a change not only in power, but also in the political culture. The people themselves had repeatedly asked the government - why is there no development? Why is there no employment? Why has corruption not been stopped? The people are always 'waiting' - 'for another government to come and reform'.

The majority that the Rashtriya Swatantra Party (RSWP) got by fielding Balen Shah as the Prime Minister in the elections or the shameful defeat of the big parties is not only the result of votes, but also a warning given by the 'eternal opposition'. The opposition may be weak in parliament, but the vigilance of conscious citizens on the streets and social media will never weaken. The new government under the leadership of Balen Shah faces a host of challenges. However, this government needs to understand that the people who brought them to power will be the ones who will criticize the government's weaknesses the most. This is the beauty of democracy. The government is a temporary management while the people are a permanent institution. Therefore, whoever the government is, the people will always play the role of the opposition. Democracy dies the day we stop asking questions. In the current political scenario of Nepal, we have not only changed leaders, we have also restored the courage to ask questions.

Let's read some examples outside Nepal about the power mania of leaders. For example, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela initially became popular due to his pro-poor policies, but later public discontent increased due to the economic crisis, inflation, and institutional weaknesses. Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan became popular due to economic reforms and stability, but later he was criticized for interfering with press freedom, the judiciary, and democratic institutions. Sri Lanka's Rajapaksa became popular due to economic reforms and stability, but later he was criticized for interfering with press freedom, the judiciary, and democratic institutions, and was ousted like Nepal's Oli.