Spread the love

By Our Reporter

The rush by local bodies’ chiefs to enter the House of Representatives race before finishing their terms raises a basic question: what does a people’s mandate really mean in Nepal’s democracy. The recent Gen Z movement has already shifted the election calendar. Federal polls are now set two years earlier than planned. That change alone has unsettled politics. But what troubles many voters more is the behavior of some local leaders who now want to jump ship midterm.

Local elections in 2022 gave mayors and chairs a clear five-year mandate. People voted with the expectation that these leaders would stay, work, fail or succeed, and remain answerable until the end of the term. When elected representatives leave with 17 months still left, the message to voters is blunt: the post was a stepping stone, not a responsibility.

The reasons behind this early jump are not hard to see. Popular local chiefs enjoy strong name recognition. Social media presence helps them bypass party structures. Federal politics offers wider reach, more power, and national visibility. For leaders like Balen Sah and Harkraj Sampang Rai, their rise as independents created a belief that popularity alone can carry them anywhere. For party figures like Renu Dahal, early entry into the House race keeps them relevant inside their party power circles.

Another factor is the confusion between local and federal roles. Many mayors have marketed federal funded projects as personal achievements. Roads, flyovers, and large schemes depend on central backing, yet local leaders often take credit. This creates an illusion of capacity. Once they move to Parliament, that illusion fades. Law making and coalition bargaining are very different from running a city office.

The cost of this ambition falls on the public. If a mayor resigns to contest federal elections, the local post becomes vacant. That breaks the mandate. By elections may not even happen due to cost concerns. In such cases, unelected arrangements take over. Voters lose both representation and voice. This weakens trust in elections and deepens cynicism, especially among young voters who already doubt political sincerity.

In a democracy like Nepal, the mandate is not a slogan. It is a contract. People give power for a fixed time. Leaders must either honor it or seek fresh approval without damaging the system. Resigning mid-term to chase higher office tells citizens that promises expire when ambition grows.

So, what should be the norms? First, complete the term. Federal ambition is not a crime, but timing matters. Second, separate local work from federal dreams. If leaders want to build parties or movements, they can do so without contesting elections mid-term. Third, election law should tighten rules on resignations close to polls, with clear penalties or compulsory by elections.

Local governments are the closest layer to the people. They deal with daily issues, water, roads, waste, schools. Treating these posts as launchpads devalues local democracy itself. Respecting the people’s mandate keeps democracy alive. Breaking it, even with popularity on one’s side, slowly empties elections of meaning.