Many senior politicians in Nepal have held the Office of the Prime Minister for one or more times. Ironically, the same politicians are eager to hold the office multiple times in the future.

This is what transpires when career politicians focus on self-aggrandisement rather than public service.

Politics inherently is a discipline where one sacrifices oneself for the 'greater good'. However, the 21st century incarnation of public service has become nothing more than self-fulfilling at the expense of – you guessed it – the general public.

In this environment, the only mechanism to rein in the greed, cynicism and petulance of career politicians is to have term limits for higher office, including that of the Office of the Prime Minister.

Also, in parliamentary democracy, these higher office holders are not directly elected to the office by the electorate, rather they are appointed by the party they lead. As such, it is in the general interest of the public to set term limits for some of the positions until we the public have a direct say on who becomes our Prime Minister.

Are you surprised that majority of the politicians are mute on this topic? I am not. There are multiple reasons for their reticence, but primarily it is driven by the plague named nepotism.

Most of the politicians belong to one of the camps of these so-called senior leaders.

It is in their interest that these senior leaders hold the higher office multiple times so that they can reap the reward in terms of other government positions that trickle down from the higher office.

This is one of the reasons we see the same faces in different ministries, such as, defense, finance, agriculture, home and the like time and again. If we do not hold the senior politicians responsible for the office they take, it will be difficult to extrapolate accountability from their junior associate.

In all fairness, this system of corralling one's political career around senior leaders is a constraint that parliamentary democracy sets on the aspiring politicians.

However, the rise of independent candidates like Balen Shah shows that the system is not immune to outside pressure.

At the same time, for most novice politicians, breaking the institutional glass ceiling can be insurmountable. Sadly, the current office holders know this reality. Thus, most of the senior politicians and their subservient disciples are resistant to any change in the system.

The only way out of this gridlock is to have constitutional amendments that require a fixed term for an individual holding some of the important government offices. Constitutional amendment in a liberal democracy is a tall order, and we need 'young blood' such as Balen to lead a bipartisan effort.

Asking politicians to vote against their self-interest is akin to asking the same politicians to not vote for their government's benefit.

If there can be unanimous support for a salary hike among leaders, we the public can and should ask for unanimous support for our interest, which our leaders are elected to protect in the first place.

The good news is that most of the senior politicians are near the age of retirement, and the next generation can be persuaded by a charismatic, competent and visionary leader with the backing of the electorate. The onus lies on the current and future generation of 'new' politicians.

Like any movement, the baton has to be carried by a couple of innovative leaders across major parties who are going to put the country first before their own self-interest. Innovation is a term that gets used a lot in the private sector, but our public sphere is also in desperate need of innovation and rejuvenation.

The benefit of a fixed term for higher office is that it creates stability for the position, and it 'might' induce our leaders to focus on their legacy. In our current system, it is a miracle if a Prime Minister can serve his full term of five years mandated by the constitution.

Inner party feuds, myopia, revenge politics and nepotism have made a fool out of the important public offices that are supposed to be a paragon of our society.

If a politician is willing to denigrate the highest office of the land, then it is difficult to ask much from the ordinary citizen. If we can instill some form of deference and stability to these offices then we might be able to assuage the general grievances that the public have towards our institutions, leaders and system at-large.

Finally, having a term-limit might induce our leaders to leave behind a legacy which the future generations might enjoy.

Imagine the hearts and minds our newly elected mayor Balen Shah will win if he can tackle the problem of pollution and waste management in Kathmandu Metropolitan City.

As for the electorate, they can make public officials accountable for the public service they deliver. Public service is not a profession to garner riches. We have an entire private sector devoted to such endeavours.

Sadly, the modern version of politics has become a lucrative career profession for many where they can use their propensity for demagoguery and chicanery.

Enshrining the term-limit in our constitution might instill some level of sanity in these offices and office holders.

The aphorism that politics ain't a beanbag has some truth to it. By definition, politics is a messy and cynical business, but it has been the best governing principle of the last 200 years. In the case of Nepal, the time period of active politicking is even less.

However, it is our duty to create check and balances in our system so that it is responding to the electorate in the most efficient manner possible, and having a term limit for higher public offices will go a long way in ensuring a robust mechanism to keep our system in tune with the general needs of the public.

Pathak is education management consultant at Islington College

A version of this article appears in the print on June 6, 2022, of The Himalayan Times.