Changing Parties and Faces Will Not Bring Change Unless the Structure of Governance Changes
Sanket Kiranti
With floods damaging roads and bridges, air travel has become the most convenient option in some parts of the country. Yet passengers have complained that domestic airfares have soared ahead of the festivals, with tickets to some destinations costing more than flights from Kathmandu to New Delhi. A fare comparison alone does not prove collusion in the market. But if passengers are being charged unreasonable amounts when they are under pressure to travel during a crisis or festival season, both the state and the public have the right to demand answers. When roads are blocked, air travel becomes a necessity. If that necessity is turned into an opportunity for excessive profit, the issue goes beyond ordinary market fluctuations and becomes a test of regulation and public accountability.
The debate, then, cannot be limited to airfares. When black marketing, bribery, artificial shortages and privileged access to government decisions shape people’s daily lives, a fundamental question arises: whom does the state serve? Rules exist on paper, regulatory bodies are in place, and there are ministers and a parliament. But if citizens are left helpless and middlemen grow more powerful in times of crisis, the problem is not simply a lack of rules. The relationship between those who make and enforce the rules and those who profit from breaking them must be examined.
Neocolonialism does not always arrive under a foreign flag. National sovereignty is also weakened when real decision-making power over the country’s resources, markets, policies and labour is concentrated in the hands of a narrow group of vested interests. External economic dependence, an import-based market, an opaque political economy, public contracts and pressure on regulatory bodies can help sustain such a structure. It is not enough to conclude that foreign powers alone run the state; we must also examine how domestic networks of power, business and political influence turn external dependence into profit.
That is why changing a party’s name, election symbol or leader’s age does not automatically give the public a genuine alternative. The Nepali Congress, CPN-UML, CPN (Maoist Centre), Rastriya Prajatantra Party, Madhes-based parties and newer parties cannot be judged as people-centred simply on the basis of their identity. The bell may be a new election symbol and the face may be young, but if political donations remain opaque, policymaking is dominated by a narrow group, and public assets and contracts lack accountability, there is a risk that the old political culture will return in a new form. It is equally untrue that everyone in an established party is the same or that everyone in a new party is automatically different. A leader’s record and public accountability, not age or publicity, show how they govern.
Mocking the public as “foolish” is no solution. When debate about alternatives is confined to old versus young, established versus new, or parties versus movements, the real questions are pushed aside. Who makes policy? Where does party funding come from? Who wins public contracts? Who controls prices during a crisis? Can regulatory bodies act independently of pressure from the government, political parties and businesses? If these questions remain unanswered while only the faces change, entrenched networks of power gain another opportunity to protect themselves.
Patriotism is more than a flag, a slogan or a speech. It also means creating conditions in which people can travel within their own country, afford medicine and food, and access jobs and education. National sovereignty is strengthened when the state does not leave citizens at the mercy of middlemen during a crisis; when public resources and budgets serve the public interest; and when information about prices, contracts and political donations is made available to the people.
To achieve this, the cost of air travel and the method used to set fares should be made public. Emergency fare limits and complaint-handling mechanisms must be made effective, and allegations of price-fixing and black marketing must be investigated impartially. Reforms to make party income and expenditure transparent, prevent conflicts of interest and give regulatory bodies greater independence must move forward at the same time. The alternative the public seeks must be demonstrated through these actions, not slogans.
Revolutionary patriotism does not mean merely replacing one party with another. It means a democratic transformation that restores citizens to the centre of decision-making, breaks opaque alliances between power and wealth, and makes public institutions accountable to the people. If the rules of governance remain unchanged, the old structure will return in a new guise, even when the parties and individuals change. A genuine alternative is not defined by age or election symbol; it is built on policies that put people’s lives, national independence and public accountability first.
