By Deepak Joshi Pokhrel The question is often tossed around in our society that why we are unable to embark on the path of prosperity despite having all the necessary ingredients at our disposal. People also question whether we will be able to witness better days ahead will remain a country in perpetual political transition till eternity with present leadership who are unaccountable, incompetent, self-centred and egoist, our dream to see a prosperous Nepal is just like a mirage in the desert. Leadership is the ability to inspire a team to achieve a certain goal. The definition of leadership is to influence, inspire and help others become their best selves, building their skills and achieving goals along the way. In addition, good leadership will always instigate people to rally behind him for the noble cause and set the example to follow his suit. Mahatma Gandhi, Winston Churchill, Nelson Mandela and Abraham Lincoln etc are a few great leaders who were committed to the welfare of the nation and its people. The moot question that arises at this critical time is do we have such leaders who can rise above vested interest and work for the betterment of the country and its people. Ever since we restored democracy in 1990, we have seen the same set of leaders Prachanda, Sher Bhadur Deuba and KP Oli are the dominating political actors in Nepalese politics. People gave them the mandate to govern them but they almost failed on all occasions. Our leaders never tried to understand the pulse of the people who are struggling with their day-to-day problems. Their only intention was to grab power no matter how it came. Whether Nepali Congress, Maoist (Centre), Tarai-based parties or CPN-UML, the top leaders seem reluctant to relinquish power to the younger generation. This is manifested in the fight for party chairmanship between KP Oli and Prachanda. Similarly, Ram Chandra Paudel and Deuba's confrontation for leading the party is another example of our leaders’ lust for power. The wrangling between Upendra Yadav and Rajendra Mahota over position is an open secret. There are several others. Top leaders’ penchant for power and the young generation's failure to challenge the seniors have made leadership handover a distant dream. Across the globe, the leaders step down on moral ground paving the avenues for adolescent leaders. They do not wish to hold party leadership positions after they start ageing. Conversely in Nepal, leaders above 60 years are viewed as young leaders in our country. According to media reports, the top leaders of major parties in Nepal are either 70 years of age or above. Deuba is 75. Oli is 69. Prachanda is 66. And Nepal is 68. Approximately 20.8 percent of the total population of Nepal falls in the age group 16-25 years while 40.68 percent are aged between 16 and 40. Over 59 percent of the country’s population is aged 15-64 years, as per 2011’s national census. Only five percent of the population is above 65 years of age. The political analyst argues that the adolescent leaders in the party of all hues fear challenging the status quo. They further claim that younger generations do not want to speak against the senior party leadership fearing reprisal. They are very much mindful of the fact that they will endanger their political career if they dare to raise a voice demanding the handover of the party leadership. As there is no strong force within the party to challenge senior leadership, the old faces will continue to rule the roost. Leadership handover, however, is not something that Nepal’s political parties have not debated. But in practice, Nepali parties have been too traditional. The seniors have an uncanny penchant to remain on top and second-rung leaders have failed to challenge them. However, with the victory of Balen Shah as the mayor of Kathmandu greater metropolitan, the senior leaders of the mainstream parties now fear that their days are numbered. The election result has validated the old adage “nothing is permanent” and everything in this universe is subject to change be it party leadership or leaders themselves. While the debate over leadership handover has been the issue of discourse in recent times, observers say the time has come for Nepali political parties to consider if there should be a two-term cap for leaders—both for leading the party and the government. The next generation will not get to lead the government or party anytime soon if the present culture thrives and continues. There has to be a constitutional ceiling barring a person from leading a government more than two times. Even if it requires amending the constitution, we should not hesitate to do so for the broader interest of the nation and its people.