Last Friday, Gagan Thapa, General Secretary of the Nepali Congress (NC), and a Member of Parliament, fervently voiced the need for what he called a “transformative shift” within the party.
Amid applauds, Thapa argued that Nepali Congress “will change only if the people in the party changed” and claimed he was “struggling” to free the party from bad culture, misconduct and corruption to regain its popularity and restore the public attraction towards the grand old party.
Thapa went on to argue that the NC would undergo a profound transformation only if its members were willing to change.
He expressed his determination to overcome the party’s detrimental culture, misconduct, and corruption, stating that he was actively striving to restore the party’s popularity and rekindle public interest in the “grand-old” political institution.
It was apparent that Thapa held grievances against the party leadership for disregarding the voices of party leaders, central members, and Members of Parliament.
In fact, as the elected General Secretary of the party and a Member of Parliament representing the people of Kathmandu Constituency-4, Thapa deserves the right to hold the “deviated” party leadership accountable and steer it back onto the right track.
People can choose to explore these alternatives, signaling a potential shift in their preferences and a desire for change in the political landscape.
He further elaborated on his suggestion, offering a detailed critique of the party leadership’s failure to heed the voices of the people, emphasizing their disregard for public sentiment.
Thapa’s observation was indeed valid. It is crucial for the party leadership to pay heed to the voices of its leaders and cadres, as disregarding their input can have detrimental consequences.
Now the question arises: Has Thapa truly listened to the concerns and grievances of his voters and the people within his constituency beyond merely attending party events?
It seems unlikely, as whenever this scribe and others (residents of Kathmandu Constituency-4), attempt to contact him to highlight the issues faced by the constituency’s residents, either he fails to answer the phone or responds with a generic and vague statement: “I will call you later.”
Interestingly, this scribe has experienced repeated disappointment with Thapa’s supposedly “honest and bold voice.”
NC’s Thapa should not bear the sole responsibility for this situation. Even his contender, Rajan Bhattarai from CPN-UML, exhibits a similar behavior where he only engages with the people of the constituency (excluding party cadres) during election campaigns, and otherwise appears constantly occupied.
People, including this scribe, encounter the same polite response of “I am busy now…!” from Bhattarai, who will start meeting people of this constituency asking for votes after four years, as well.
Here, Thapa seemingly overlooked the fundamental role of a Member of Parliament, which is to diligently represent the interests and address the concerns of their constituents. This crucial aspect should not be easily forgotten or disregarded.
It appears that both Thapa (lawmaker) and Bhattarai (aspirant lawmaker) may have overlooked their responsibilities to serve as an important link between the people and the government.
Should they be reminded that their role entails actively listening to the concerns of the people, advocating for their needs at the national level, and addressing their grievances? Looks like, YES!
Should they also be reminded that ordinary individuals like us feel the need to stress that it is essential for people’s representatives to fulfill their duty to effectively represent the interests of the people they serve?
It may not be necessary for individuals like us to remind Thapa and Bhattarai of the fundamental responsibility that comes with being an elected representative or leader.
Perhaps, it is understood that they understand the important task of representing their people’s interests and engaging in the legislative process.
Unfortunately, both Thapa and Bhattarai — considered as “intellectuals” — are known for their knowledge within their respective parties, and must be well aware of the importance of engaging with voters.
They understand the need to actively listen, respond, and involve people in the democratic process in order to foster meaningful participation and representation.
However, it is totally confusing how Thapa and Bhattarai could overlook the door-to-door campaigns they conducted in the constituency during the election period, where they humbly approached voters with folded hands (Namaste).
Such grassroots engagement should serve as a reminder of the importance of connecting with the people they represent.
Unfortunately, both Thapa and Bhattarai appear to be relentless in delivering their lectures and sharing their philosophies, seemingly unable to envision a life without the limelight.
It is important to acknowledge that the “craze” surrounding Thapa may not be everlasting and could fade over time.
Indeed, it is possible that both Thapa and Bhattarai hold the belief that they deserve another opportunity and firmly assert that they still have much to offer in service to the country.
They likely maintain their conviction in their ability to make valuable contributions and seek the chance to continue their endeavors.
Consequently, they persist in their pursuits, potentially unaware of the crucial reality that their position and opportunity stem from the support and trust of the people within their constituency.
As new political parties and independent candidates emerge, voters have the freedom to opt for alternative options, considering newer faces with fresh ideas and novel approaches.
Regrettably, quite a number of people’s representatives have been exhibiting a lack of accountability, which can contribute to a sense of detachment from people’s concerns.
People can choose to explore these alternatives, signaling a potential shift in their preferences and a desire for change in the political landscape.
If such a scenario unfolds, there is a possibility that the valuable experience gained by Thapa and Bhattarai could be underutilized or overlooked.
Despite their hard-earned experience, the emergence of new faces and ideas may lead to a potential diversion of their expertise.
The principle holds that impartial individuals, not just political cadres, often seek out their representatives to seek assistance with problems or issues they encounter.
It should be noted that it’s not unusual for constituents to reach out to their representatives for support to address their concerns or resolve issues.
However, in the meantime, it is equally important to acknowledge the trend where people’s representatives find it challenging to meet the people’s expectations as the people’s demands can be overwhelming.
This realization stems from the understanding that the most powerful tool in a democracy is the vote.
People often experience frustration and disappointment due to a prevailing perception that elected representatives tend to disregard their constituents once they secure their position in the office.
Regrettably, quite a number of people’s representatives have been exhibiting a lack of accountability, which can contribute to a sense of detachment from people’s concerns.
Moreover, this is also exacerbated by the absence of dialogue and transparency, resulting in voters feeling disregarded by their representatives.
Therefore, voters have a unanimous voice: Act now before it is too late!
Comment