The excitement and intensity for the House of Representatives (HoR) election, stipulated on March 5, have adequately heated up the country’s political atmosphere and hogged media headlines. Some parties have started daydreaming of securing an absolute majority or becoming the largest party. Three parties have even designated their prime ministerial candidate if they are to head the government after the election. Claims of securing the majority and building the nation are shared with exponentially excessive confidence; and there is also a sizable group that gets misled with such rhetoric. A student who had not closely studied our electoral system, parliamentary arithmetic, and the algorithm of government formation once asked me an innocent yet telling question: What happens if two or three parties all secure a majority at once? Perhaps such pitiable and naïve curiosity is the byproduct of parties’ repeated boasts about winning the majority.

It appears that declaring a prime ministerial contender in advance is the strongest basis for a thumping victory. Author PH Argersinger, in his book Populism and Politics, trusts the vote but doubts the validity of such populism. Many naturally regard such declarations as a new practice and an effective step toward political change. However, upon minute examination, it cannot be gainsaid that this move is politically immature and little more than a cheap joke, for at least half a dozen reasons.

Immense immaturity

First, the political system we currently exercise is a parliamentary one. Needless to explain, the executive is chosen by parliament—under Article 176 of the constitution—and to be a prime ministerial contender, one must be elected to the lower house. Is it not even unconstitutional to announce someone as a prime ministerial candidate from outside parliament before parliament itself has been formed? If such a matter becomes sub-judice in the court, it could well become a subject of adjudication. There are precedents: Declaring Narendra Modi in India and Krishna Prasad Bhattarai in our case as the upcoming prime minister (PM) before the elections successfully had begotten remarkable results.

Second, parties are projecting bravado about winning a majority based on a single individual. Such a practice neither brings a majority nor delivers reform. It merely promotes person-centred politics and elitism. One should not harbour the illusion that public expectations will be fulfilled simply because a particular individual of soaring popularity index becomes the PM.

Third, this practice is also a gross mockery of the citizens’ mindset. It may reflect a condescending assumption that citizens are not conscious, that merely showcasing someone as prime minister is enough to attract votes. Is this not degrading citizens to a very low status, assuming they are mesmerised only by personal popularity and have no deeper concerns?

Girija Prasad Koirala (post restoration of democracy), Pushpa Kamal Dahal (during the Maoist movement), and KP Oli (around the 2017 elections) were no less popular than today’s touted figures. At those times, expectations and hopes of nation-building were just as high as that are now being built in certain names. But did that popularity deliver results? Not at all.

Fourth, even if a majority is secured, will a government survive if it fails to meet the expectations of the country and its citizens? Did Oli not once command a two-thirds majority government? Is securing a majority and making someone prime minister truly a panacea for all problems? Has the practice of populism based on individual affection not become one of the greatest weaknesses of today’s politics?

Fifth, we are romantically aestheticising that one person alone can transform an entire country. What kind of team will that person have? What are the action plans? There is little interest in presenting or explaining such matters. If future responsibility is to be projected, why not project it to the entire team? The HoR assigns responsibilities to nearly 50 positions: a Council of Ministers of up to 25 members, the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker, and chairs of various parliamentary committees. Why does no party have either the conscience or the calibre to present such a complete team?

Sixth, a large mass is swayed with an ingrained promotion of the youth generation. Youth-led and youth-directed politics certainly hold many possibilities and strengths, and their leadership and influence should be welcomed unconditionally. But one should not assume that the country will automatically advance simply because leaders are young, as if this alone were an irrefutable verity. During the Panchayat era, with few exceptions, most leaders of the state were sufficiently young.

The populist praxis, youth rhetoric and majority slogans—currently being used in politics—are not new practices. One generation may be witnessing and experiencing them first, but these phenomena have been tested many times in Nepal’s politics and have been recorded as failures.

Plausible path

If there is truly a desire to bring about credible change in politics, only a meritocratic mega-launch can yield meaningful outcomes. Each party could prepare a list of at least 5,000 new, trustworthy, qualified, honest, experienced and capable individuals. Two years before the election, parties could publicly release lists of candidates for the president, vice president, prime minister, ministers, as well as 1,506 chief/deputy chiefs in 753 local units, 550 provincial assembly members, 275 House of Representatives members, 59 National Assembly members, and some 3,000 individuals to be appointed to various state bodies. Prominent author Yuval Noah Harari in his recent release Nexus urges similar sorts of impressive ‘psychographic profiling’ for electoral victory and validity.

Each officiated candidate should consult all stakeholders and develop a concrete blueprint for what they would do if entrusted with responsibility, and these plans should be disseminated to mass. Separate, detailed reform agendas for each ministry should be openly announced. Goals and strategies must be clear—not only what will be done, but also how it will be done.

However, the outgoing generation visibly lacks progressive thinking and the enthusiasm to work for citizens. Those who claim to be new and emerging also aggressively engage in merely denouncing the old, offering no new plans or visions. Politics demands vision, commitment, dedication, and concrete action plans. None of these qualities is currently visible from any party or force. Without a strong political intervention, the situation should be understood not only as the failure of old parties but also as the inept silence and irrefutable immaturity of those who claim to be new, noble and conscious.

May the proposed prime ministers have action plans like these or even better ones, and may their teams also be made public. Only then will it be easier to weigh options. For now, what we have is merely a showcase for a single prime minister. There is often a wide gap between advertising and reality, and the future is likely to be no different. At the same time, we must ponder that we may have to endure a politics in which none of the proposed candidates actually become prime minister. Let us not reduce the dignity of the prime minister’s office to a cheap joke or mere advertising.