By Narayan Prasad Mishra

Political parties are meant to lead and govern a country according to democratic principles. They are expected to serve the broader interests of society—not just specific groups. They uphold the constitution, the rule of law, free elections, and civil liberties. They also encourage civic engagement and educate citizens about their rights and responsibilities. Ideally, they hold themselves and the government accountable through transparency and internal democracy.

In contrast, professional associations exist to promote, develop, and protect the interests of specific professional fields—such as medicine, law, or engineering. Their focus is not on governing society but on advancing the interests of their members. The fundamental aims and objectives of political parties and professional associations are, therefore, quite different, as they serve distinct roles in society.

Political parties are supposed to be the backbone of democracy. At their best, they are the institutions through which people participate in governance, shape public policy, and hold leaders accountable. They are expected to serve the nation above all else—representing diverse voices, protecting minority rights, and upholding justice, even when it is politically inconvenient. This commitment to the public good over private gain is what distinguishes a political party from a gang or an exclusive group.

But in our country, this distinction is dangerously blurred. The conduct of most political parties today stands in stark contrast to democratic ideals. Increasingly, they are driven by loyalty to party members rather than service to the people. Party affiliation has become a passport to privilege; party power is a tool for manipulation. They prioritize the interests of their members over the needs of the nation—using party and even state power to serve themselves rather than the public.

We are all aware that the essence of a gang or a club is exclusivity—serving the interests of a closed group. Sadly, this is how many political parties in Nepal now operate. Their decisions are not guided by what is right for the country but by what benefits their inner circle. This tendency is glaringly visible in how they handle employment, promotions, appointments, and legal matters.

The distortion of democratic values becomes most apparent in the way parties exert influence over government institutions. Whether it’s appointing constitutional officials or ambassadors, selecting university leadership, or filling top posts in critical departments such as electricity, water, or agriculture—the selection criteria too often revolve around party allegiance rather than competence or integrity. This practice undermines public trust and weakens institutional capacity—two pillars essential to a healthy democracy.

If you are a party loyalist, doors open; if you are an independent citizen, they slam shut. Justice bends, due process is bypassed, and merit becomes irrelevant. When political parties fail to uphold democratic principles, they betray the very foundation of their mandate. In Nepal, this betrayal is increasingly visible in high-profile scandals and political disputes: the Fake Bhutanese Refugee scandal, the Cooperative Fraud cases, the corruption investigations, the dismissal and appointment of figures like Kulman Ghising, the standoff between Mayor Balen Shah and the federal government, and the court cases involving Rabi Lamichhane. As a result, the streets of Kathmandu are often filled with public protests and rising frustration.

Even more disturbing is the reach of party power into private disputes. The gang-like behavior of some political parties becomes evident when they intervene in conflicts between their members and ordinary citizens. In disputes over land, property, and business, local ward offices and government agencies often favor those with party backing. This transforms public institutions into tools of political control rather than guardians of justice.

In some cases, groups of party members physically confront or intimidate independent citizens to protect their own—using both muscle and state power. I have personally experienced this: in a business dispute, I was threatened by individuals associated with Maoist party power. Recently, I heard from a professor friend of mine that he was tortured and harassed by his neighbor by occupying his compound area associated with a political party. Such behavior violates the principle of equal protection under the law. It turns governance into partisanship, leaving citizens without party ties voiceless and vulnerable.

A true political party is not a gang. It does not exist to protect its own at all costs. It does not twist the law to serve its members’ interests. It does not reduce governance to a game of favors and retaliation. A genuine political party must function within the bounds of the Constitution. It respects the separation of powers and promotes transparency, accountability, and fairness. While it competes in elections, it must also uphold democratic values between elections.

If Nepal is to move forward, its political parties must rediscover their true purpose. They must stop functioning like exclusive associations and begin acting as inclusive institutions. Loyalty to the nation must come before loyalty to the party. Justice must apply equally to all, regardless of political affiliation. Governance must serve the people—not just the powerful.

Democracy is more than elections—it is a culture of fairness, justice, and accountability. Political parties are its custodians. If they fail in their duty, democracy itself becomes hollow. Nepal deserves better. The people deserve better. And it is the responsibility of political leaders—and indeed of all citizens—to demand that political parties live up to their name.

In a healthy democracy, political parties are not merely power-seeking organizations. They are pillars of the democratic system, formed to represent citizens, shape national policy, and safeguard the rule of law. But in Nepal—as in many developing countries—this ideal is becoming increasingly distant from reality.

When political parties act like **closed groups**, they stop functioning as public institutions. They become instruments of favoritism and control—protecting their members at all costs, regardless of ethics, legality, or justice. What should distinguish a political party from a gang or professional association is a deep, unwavering commitment to public service—not unquestioning loyalty to a select few.

narayanshanti70@gmail.com