Spread the love

By Our Reporter

The rush by provincial lawmakers to quit their posts and aim for seats in the House of Representatives has laid bare an uncomfortable truth about how politics works today. With the March 5 election approaching, resignations have started to stack up across provinces. What feels troubling is not only the number of exits but how casually many elected representatives are walking away from roles voters expected them to carry for five full years.

Party switching during elections has long stopped raising eyebrows. That habit is now entrenched into the system. What feels different this time is the speed and scale of resignations from provincial assemblies. Lawmakers elected for a fixed term of five years are stepping down midway, sometimes barely into their tenure, hoping to move up to the federal level. This is playing out in Koshi, Madhesh, Bagmati, Lumbini, and Sudurpaschim. A dozen provincial lawmakers have already resigned, and more are lining up.

The reason is not hard to read. The House of Representatives offers greater reach, stronger influence, and easier access to state power. Provincial roles, by contrast, feel smaller and less rewarding. For many politicians, a provincial seat now looks like a stopover. Once a federal ticket becomes possible, the provincial mandate loses value. Over time, this mindset has turned provincial assemblies into launch pads rather than institutions meant to govern.

Bagmati Province tells the story clearly. Aman Maske, Yubaraj Dulal, Kundan Kafle, and Sunil KC have all resigned to chase federal seats. Some changed parties along the way, others stayed put but moved upward. Madhesh is no different. Former Speaker Ramchandra Mandal, former Chief Minister Satish Kumar Singh, and former State Minister Rehbar Ansari have all quit to contest House seats. Lumbini followed suit with Kanhaiya Baniya, Dhan Bahadur Maski, and Dharma Bahadur Chaudhary stepping down. In Sudurpaschim, Dr Tara Joshi resigned after securing a federal nomination.

No law has been broken. The constitution allows this. That is not where the discomfort lies. Voters did not elect these leaders for a short trial period. They voted with the expectation of five years of service. Development plans, local commitments, and policy promises were all framed around that term. Leaving early sends a simple message, the promise lasts only until a better option appears.

Many people see this as a breach of trust. Elections cost money and effort. When lawmakers resign halfway, replacements or by elections follow, placing another burden on the system. The deeper damage lies in the signal sent to young voters, especially after recent youth driven calls for cleaner politics. The lesson they absorb is grim, loyalty is optional and commitment is temporary.

There is also a deeper flaw. Power remains tightly held in Kathmandu. Provinces still struggle for authority, funding, and respect. As long as provincial offices remain weak, politicians will keep treating them as second tier. This is not only about politics but also about how the state itself is structured.

If this pattern continues, provincial governance will suffer and public faith in elections will thin further. Clearer rules are needed. Lawmakers could be required to complete most of their term before running for another post. Another option is barring those who resign without valid reasons from contesting the next election. Political parties must also look inward. Rewarding short term ambition over steady work sends the wrong signal.

At heart, this rush shows a widening gap between what voters expect and how politicians act. Closing that gap will take more than speeches. It will take rules that protect the vote and leaders who see a mandate as a responsibility, not a temporary badge.