An article titled ‘Improvement in Political Parties: Where and How?’ written by Krishna Khanal, Kedar Bhakta Mathema, Bhojraj Pokharel, Sushila Karki and Vidyadhar Mallik was published in ‘Kantipur’ (Bhadra 16, 2082). The article clearly pointed out that if parties cannot improve their working style, leadership structure and internal processes, democracy, good governance and development will have no meaning. Although the article shocked the old parties, today’s election results have given a new twist to that debate. Now the issue of reform is not just a theoretical necessity, but a political inevitability expected by public opinion.

The election held on Falgun 21 has set a new standard on many political issues, and its results have also given many messages to political parties. Although many have debated about the reform of political parties for a long time, such debates have not been able to find meaning. However, this time, public opinion has brought the debate out of intellectual practice and transformed it into practical pressure. Now reform has become a necessity, not an option. This time, voters have challenged the traditional power structure and forced the parties to introspect. Although the old parties are still reviewing their defeat, one aspect of the review is – what reforms should the parties make now? 

Structural reform 
Deep structural reform is no longer normal, but mandatory in political parties. Fraternal and benevolent organizations that were considered indispensable for winning elections yesterday have today largely developed into centers of power display, abuse of access, and corruption. Although the historical role played by these structures in expanding the organization cannot be denied, in the current context, they need to be restructured and placed in a transparent, accountable, and limited role, or else they should have the courage to abolish them. In addition, the tendency for the decision-making process within the party to be overly centralized should be broken and a bottom-up structure should be created, where the voices of local level members are reflected in policymaking. Along with this, the model of full-time politicians also needs to be reconsidered, because the practice of doing politics without an unclear source of income and professional dependence is losing credibility. 

Now, parties need to move to a 'graduation model', which prepares capable and committed cadres. That is, it is not about taking cadres who have joined the party to the top role all at once, but rather developing a system that gradually increases responsibility through clear stages and criteria. 

One person, one position 
A problem that has been seen in parties for a long time is the dominance of individualistic politics and centralized politics. For example, in parties, those who work in the organization and those who do politics should be different. For example, those who run the party organization should not be in power or parliamentary politics. When the same person handles the party organization, government, and parliamentary responsibilities simultaneously, the decision-making process is focused on a limited number of people, internal democracy is weakened, and accountability is lacking.

For example, the debate that those who work in the party organization and those who are in power or parliamentary politics should be different starts here. For example, the leadership that runs the party organization should not take a direct role in the government or parliament. This provides two important advantages. First, the balance of power and organization can evaluate the work of the government, and those in government should also bring clarity to the implementation of the party's policy.

Second, efficiency increases. Because when a single person handles many responsibilities, he cannot give enough time to the organization, nor can he work effectively in the government. In addition, the division of positions expands the scope of leadership, makes competition healthy, and strengthens institutional development. This is not only a matter of reform management, but also the beginning of a change in political culture. Which strengthens not individuals, but the organization, and not access, but the system.

Issue-based politics and open participation 
As the culture of disagreement and debate within parties has shrunk, unnecessary loyalty has been given priority. It is necessary to develop an open dialogue where different opinions, criticism, and suggestions can be expressed openly, which helps make the party alive, dynamic, and timely. 

One possible outcome of the current political change is the emergence of part-time politics, which promotes open participation. Many people who were not in full-time politics are also entering parliament. In addition, citizens may become politically active when specific issues such as corruption, good governance, or economic opportunity arise, but may not feel the need to become permanent party activists. Thus, political participation may tend to be ad hoc rather than continuous.

Similarly, politics may focus on issue-based mobilization rather than on rigid ideological frameworks. Voters often seem more concerned with concrete issues such as good governance, service delivery, and economic opportunity than with traditional ideological identities such as socialism or democratic socialism. Therefore, parties that can present a clear agenda can gain support without a broad organizational structure. For that, some individuals may be effective, who have a lot of social capital and can exert influence even if they are not in full-time politics. In addition, parties should be open to people from any profession.

Problem-solving organizations
Political parties can no longer be limited to movement-focused mechanisms. People expect concrete solutions, not just protests. While ideology and philosophy are important, parties must now refine themselves based on them. Parties should redefine their role and transform themselves into problem-solving institutions, where the emphasis is on policy-making, expertise, and implementation capacity. Only in this way can parties move towards winning the trust of the people and making democracy effective. 

Strengthening internal democracy and financial transparency
Direct election of leadership is important to strengthen internal democracy within the party. In most parties, the leadership selection process, although it appears to be a convention, is based on consensus and balance of power among a limited number of top leaders, which has made the role of ordinary members almost inactive. This strengthens factional loyalty and increases internal dissatisfaction rather than accountability to the leadership. As an alternative, a system of selecting leadership through direct voting by party members should be developed, which gives legitimacy to the leadership on a broad basis and makes the decision-making process inclusive. 

One of the weak points of political parties is financial transparency. How are the programs run by parties and how are day-to-day expenses met? That is not clear. The issues of party operations, fundraising, and election spending are still unclear and opaque, which has weakened public trust. Therefore, parties should implement regular public reports of their income and expenditure, independent audits, and clear financial standards.