Submit your Article

The election for the 275-member House of Representatives (HoR) was conducted peacefully across the country, despite a few minor incidents of violence reported in some constituencies. Voters from across generations—from GenZ youth to citizens over 100 years old—turned out to cast their ballots.

The election marks an important effort to revive Nepal’s constitutional framework after it was destabilized by a protest-driven political crisis. As voting concludes, public attention is now shifting toward the reform measures the new government will undertake. People remain concerned about how the incoming leadership will address political challenges, overcome structural constraints, and stabilize the country’s fragile economic situation.

Voters expect the new government to focus on improving the overall quality of life by ensuring good governance and maintaining strong control over corruption. People want the government to create more jobs and expand economic opportunities so that citizens can achieve financial stability and growth.

Farmers expect the timely availability of chemical fertilizers to support agricultural productivity, while students and families hope for quality and affordable education. At the same time, citizens want accessible and affordable healthcare services, a clean and reliable supply of tap water, and dependable public transportation systems.

Proper monitoring and regulation of markets to control prices is also a major expectation, as it would help protect consumers from inflation and unfair practices. Overall, voters hope the new government will work responsibly to build a fair, transparent, and prosperous society for everyone.

The new government—whether led by old or new political actors—will be obliged to take measures to bring about meaningful change. However, this election is unlikely to produce a single-party majority government due to the current electoral system, which combines First-Past-the-Post and Proportional Representation. Nepal first implemented this system in the 2008 Constituent Assembly elections, and since then no party has secured a single-party majority to form the government. National elections were subsequently held in 2013, 2017, and 2022, but none produced a single-party government. Thursday’s election is also expected to result in a coalition government involving more than two political parties. To initiate the reform process, the first precondition is the stability of both parliament and government.

Untimely dissolution of parliament and frequent changes in government have hindered the prospects for meaningful change. Only a stable government can create a conducive environment for constitutional amendments. Since a two-thirds majority is required to amend the constitution, such changes cannot take place without broad political consensus. While consensus may be possible among major political parties on non-political issues, it is far more difficult to reach agreement on core political matters.

Moreover, amending the constitution can open a Pandora’s box. Once the process begins, multiple groups may push their own agendas. For instance, royalist groups demand the restoration of the Hindu state and monarchy, while other groups have their own competing demands. In addition, improving governance will require amendments to dozens of existing laws, which is also a complex and time-consuming task.

Good governance and institutional reforms are essential to boost private investment, foster inclusive and sustainable growth, create jobs, and increase productivity. There is also a need to attract more foreign direct investment to bridge the funding gap for infrastructure development and other sectors. However, foreign companies often complain about bureaucratic red tape and regulatory hurdles when investing in Nepal. At the same time, the economic policies of the new government will be closely watched by the international community.

The new government faces the formidable task of undertaking comprehensive reforms across political, economic, and state institutions. Achieving these reforms will require a stable and conducive political environment within Nepal’s fragmented political landscape.

As vote counting for the March 5 election continues across the country, there are clear indications that the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), led by Rabi Lamichhane and politically nurtured by former Kathmandu Metropolitan City Mayor Balendra Shah, is heading toward a single-party majority.

Vote counting is underway in more than 60 constituencies, and RSP candidates are leading by large margins over candidates from the Nepali Congress (NC), CPN-UML, and other parties in 50 seats. In Jhapa-5, Balendra Shah is leading over KP Sharma Oli by more than three thousand votes. Among other top leaders, Nepal Communist Party Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal is leading in Rukum-West, a Maoist heartland.

The RSP, which emerged as the fourth-largest party in the 2022 national elections, gained significant popularity after naming Balendra Shah as its senior leader and prime ministerial candidate. When Shah traveled across the country during the campaign, thousands of young people turned out to welcome him.

In recent weeks, local media reports had already suggested that the RSP was likely to perform strongly, posing a serious challenge to the Nepali Congress and other traditional political parties. A large section of the public had grown increasingly frustrated with established parties due to corruption, governance failures, lack of job creation, and their inability to address the everyday concerns of ordinary citizens.

At the same time, many grassroots members of major parties were dissatisfied, believing that a small group of leaders had captured party structures from the top down. The Gen Z protests of September 8–9, during which 76 people—including 19 students—were killed, further damaged the credibility of traditional political forces.

Even after the Gen Z movement, most major parties failed to reform their leadership, with the partial exception of the Nepali Congress. However, despite changing its leadership, the NC also struggled to regain the attention and trust of voters.

Ordinary citizens are now expecting improved governance, stronger action against corruption, job creation, and better public service delivery. The prevailing sentiment among many voters is clear: traditional political parties were given opportunities for more than four decades, yet failed to deliver meaningful change. As a result, many people now prefer to give newer political forces a chance.

Voting began across Nepal on Thursday morning in a crucial parliamentary election that will determine the country’s next government. The election is widely viewed as pivotal as it comes after months of political turbulence and public protests led largely by younger voters demanding sweeping reforms.

Polling stations opened at 7:00 a.m. local time and will close at 5:00 p.m., according to the Election Commission Nepal. Officials said 18,903,689 voters are eligible to cast ballots, including 9,663,358 men and 9,240,131 women.

The election will decide the composition of the 275-member House of Representatives of Nepal, the lower chamber of the federal parliament. Of these seats, 165 lawmakers will be elected through the First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) system, while 110 members will be chosen under the Proportional Representation (PR) system, a hybrid electoral model introduced under the 2015 constitution.

One of the most closely watched races is in Jhapa-5, where former prime minister KP Sharma Oli is contesting against former Kathmandu mayor Balendra Shah. The contest has drawn national attention as it pits an experienced political heavyweight against a popular independent figure associated with youth-driven political reform.

Oli, a senior leader of the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist–Leninist), lost power following widespread protests led by Generation Z activists earlier this year. The demonstrations called for stronger anti-corruption measures, improved governance, job creation, and greater political accountability.

Under Nepal’s constitutional framework, the prime minister must be a member of the House of Representatives, making parliamentary victories critical for leaders seeking to head the next government.

The last parliamentary election was held in 2022, producing a fragmented mandate that resulted in shifting coalitions and political instability. The latest election is expected to reshape the country’s political landscape as voters seek stability and effective governance after the protests and months of uncertainty.

Nepal transitioned to a federal democratic republic following the abolition of the monarchy in 2008 and the adoption of a new constitution in 2015. However, frequent government changes and coalition disputes have continued to challenge political stability.

Economically, Nepal remains one of the lower-income countries in South Asia. The country’s per capita income stands at around $1,517, reflecting persistent structural challenges including limited industrialization, dependence on remittances, and vulnerability to external shocks.

Over the past decade (2014/15–2024/25), Nepal’s economy has grown at an average rate of around 4.2 percent. Despite the political unrest triggered by the Gen Z protest movement in the first quarter of fiscal year 2025/26, the overall economic outlook remains relatively stable.

According to recent projections, consumer price inflation is expected to remain around 4.0 percent, lower than the government’s annual projection of 5 percent. Meanwhile, economic growth is forecast at around 4.0 percent, which is below the government’s 6 percent target for the year.

Voters expect the new government to focus on improving the overall quality of life by ensuring good governance and maintaining strong control over corruption. People want the government to create more jobs and expand economic opportunities so that citizens can achieve financial stability and growth.

 Farmers expect the timely availability of chemical fertilizers to support agricultural productivity, while students and families hope for quality and affordable education. At the same time, citizens want accessible and affordable healthcare services, a clean and reliable supply of tap water, and dependable public transportation systems. 

Proper monitoring and regulation of markets to control prices is also a major expectation, as it would help protect consumers from inflation and unfair practices. Overall, voters hope the new government will work responsibly to build a fair, transparent, and prosperous society for everyone.

On March 5, Nepal is holding the election for the 275-member House of Representative(HoR) which will be the 10th democratic elections in Nepal’s history, including the referendum of 1980 and two elections of Constituent Assembly elections. The election is taking place against the backdrop of the Sept 8-9 Genz protests. Nepal’s electoral history from 1959 to 2022 reflects a gradual evolution from a nascent democracy with limited participation to a complex multiparty system, emphasizing inclusive representation. This is an overview of Nepal’s electoral exercise since 1959. 

1959 Parliamentary Elections

Nepal’s first parliamentary election was held in 1959, with polling conducted over 45 days—from Feb 18 to April 10—due to limited transportation and logistical constraints. A total of 4,246,468 voters were registered, and turnout stood at 42.19 percent.  Although participation was modest, the election was widely regarded as a historic democratic milestone. Nine political parties and 12 independent candidates contested the polls. The House of Representatives comprised 109 members, while the National Assembly had 36 members—half nominated by the King and half elected. The Nepali Congress secured victory with 74 seats. 

Other parties won as follows: Nepal Rastrabadi Gorkha Parisad (19), Samyukta Prajatantra Party (5), Nepal Communist Party (4), Nepal Praja Parisad (Acharya) (2), Nepal Praja Parisad (Mishra) (2), and independents (4). Dwarika Devi Thakurani became Nepal’s first female lawmaker. Several political heavyweights, including DR Regmi, Tanka Prasad Acharya, and KI Singh, were defeated. Nepali Congress leader BP Koirala became Nepal’s first democratically elected Prime Minister. However, in 1960, King Mahendra dismissed the government and imposed the party-less Panchayat system, halting parliamentary democracy for three decades.

1980 Referendum

The 1980 referendum marked a critical turning point. Voters were asked to choose between a reformed Panchayat system and a multiparty democracy. Out of 7,192,451 registered voters, turnout reached 66.93 percent. Invalid votes accounted for 7.64 percent, reflecting both the novelty of the process and voter confusion. The reformed Panchayat system secured 54.79 percent of the vote, while 45.21 percent supported multiparty democracy. Notably, 19 districts, including Kathmandu, Lalitpur, Bhaktapur, Morang, Sunsari, Kaski, Rupandehi, Dang, and Kanchanpur, voted in favor of multiparty democracy. The result revealed a country divided between continuity and change, foreshadowing the pro-democracy movement of 1990.

1990 Restoration of Democracy

The Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal 1990, restored multiparty democracy and established a bicameral legislature comprising the House of Representatives and the National Assembly. The National Assembly consisted of 60 members: 35 elected by the HoR through a single transferable vote system, 15 elected by an electoral college from the five development regions (three per region), and 10 appointed by the King. Members served six-year terms, with one-third retiring every two years. The House of Representatives consisted of 205 constituencies.

1991 Parliamentary Elections

The first election after the restoration of democracy was held on 12 May 1991. Of 11,191,777 registered voters, 65.15 percent cast their ballots. Invalid votes stood at 4.42 percent. Among 1,345 candidates, seven women and three independents were elected. The Nepali Congress won 110 seats, followed by CPN-UML with 69 seats, Samyukta Janamorcha with 9, and Nepal Sadbhawana Party with 6. The remaining seats went to smaller parties. Article 114 of the 1990 Constitution required parties to field at least five percent women candidates. Accordingly, 80 women contested the election, of whom seven were elected. A by-election in February 1994 increased the number of women lawmakers to eight. Daman Nath Dhungana was elected Speaker. Girija Prasad Koirala became Prime Minister, but internal party disputes led to the dissolution of Parliament in 1994.

1994 Mid-term Elections 

Mid-term elections were held on 15 Nov 1994. Registered voters increased to 12,327,329, and turnout reached 61.86 percent. The CPN-UML emerged as the largest party with 88 seats, followed by the Nepali Congress (83), Rastriya Prajatantra Party (20), Nepal Majdoor Kisan Party (4), Nepal Sadbhawana Party (3), and independents (7). Of 86 female candidates, six were elected, including Sailaja Acharya, Lila Shrestha, Mina Pandey, Bidya Devi Bhandari, Sahana Pradhan, and Kamala Devi Panta. Manmohan Adhikari of CPN-UML formed a minority government that lasted six months. This Parliament endorsed the Mahakali Treaty with India.

1999 Parliamentary Elections

Held on 17 May 1999, the election saw 2,238 candidates representing 39 political parties and independents. There were 13,518,839 registered voters, with turnout at 65.79 percent. Of 143 women candidates, 12 were elected. The Nepali Congress won 111 seats, CPN-UML 71, RPP 11, and the remaining seats went to smaller parties. Tara Nath Ranabhat was elected Speaker. Krishna Prasad Bhattarai initially became Prime Minister but was later replaced by Girija Prasad Koirala.

First Constituent Assembly Elections (2008) 

Following the Interim Constitution of 2007, Nepal held its historic Constituent Assembly (CA) election on 10 April 2008. The 601-member CA included 240 members elected through First-Past-The-Post (FPTP), 335 through Proportional Representation (PR), and 26 nominated members. Of 17,611,832 registered voters, turnout was 61.70 percent. Combining FPTP and PR results, the Maoists won 220 seats, Nepali Congress 110, CPN-UML 103, Madhesi Janadhikar Forum 52, and Tarai-Madhes Loktantrik Party 20. In total, 25 parties gained representation. Women held 197 seats (32.8 percent), marking a significant leap in inclusion. Pushpa Kamal Dahal became Prime Minister, though his government collapsed within nine months amid institutional conflict.

Second Constituent Assembly Elections (2013) 

The second CA election was held on 19 Nov 2013. Turnout reached 78.34 percent. Nepali Congress emerged as the largest party, followed by CPN-UML and the Maoists. Women secured 176 seats (nearly 29 percent) of the Assembly. Sushil Koirala became Prime Minister with CPN-UML support. The Assembly promulgated the Constitution of Nepal in 2015, establishing a federal democratic republic.

2017 Parliamentary Elections 

The first federal parliamentary elections under the 2015 Constitution were held in two phases in November and December 2017. Out of 15,427,938 registered voters, turnout was nearly 69 percent. Under FPTP, UML won 80 seats, Nepali Congress 23, Maoist Centre 36, and others 26. Under PR, UML secured 41 seats, Nepali Congress 40, and Maoist Centre 17. Women won 92 seats in the 275-member House. An electoral alliance between UML and Maoists later formed the Nepal Communist Party, with KP Sharma Oli as Prime Minister.

2022 Parliamentary Elections

The election was held on 20 Nov 2022. Registered voters totaled 17,988,570, with turnout at 61.4 percent. Nepali Congress emerged as the largest party with 89 seats, followed by CPN-UML (78), Maoist Centre (32), Rastriya Swatantra Party (21), and RPP (14). Women secured 91 seats in the 275-member House, reflecting continued though uneven progress in representation. Pushpa Kamal Dahal became Prime Minister in a coalition government, underscoring the era of fragmented mandates and coalition politics.

Road to 2026 Parliamentary Elections

Following the GenZ movement, parliamentary elections are scheduled for March 5. There are 18,903,689 registered voters: 9,663,358 men, 9,240,131 women, and 200 registered under the LGBTIQA+ category. Under the PR system, 63 parties are participating under 58 symbols. Under FPTP, 65 of 107 registered parties are contesting. A total of 3,406 candidates are contesting under FPTP and 3,135 under PR, including 1,772 women and 1,363 men.

Conclusion

From the landmark 1959 election that brought BP Koirala led the inclusive, mixed electoral system of the federal republic era, Nepal’s parliamentary journey reflects resilience amid instability and transformation. The party-less system endorsed in 1980, the restoration of democracy in 1990, the turbulence of the 1990s, and the republican shift after 2008 collectively illustrate a gradual deepening of democratic participation and institutional reform. While governments have frequently changed and alliances have shifted, voter engagement has remained relatively robust. Representation, particularly of women and marginalized groups, has expanded through proportional mechanisms and constitutional mandates. 

As Nepal approaches the 2026 elections, its electoral history reveals both the persistent challenges of political consolidation and the enduring public commitment to democratic choice and pluralism.

I am writing this blog just hours before the silent period for the March 5 election begins. By the time you read this, campaign speeches will have stopped, party flags will flutter quietly, and candidates will retreat from microphones and mass rallies. But the conversations—those in tea shops, buses, college canteens, and family dinner tables—will continue.

This blog is not an endorsement of any political force. It is an attempt to capture the people’s mood—what I have seen, heard, and felt over the past months—through my tea-shop gossip sessions, and through countless conversations with ordinary voters across the country. In  2024, I began spending hours at local tea shops, simply listening. To capture the conversation that takes place in a tea-shop, I started a weekly column in Annapurna Express titled: Tea-Shop Gossipwhich is available online.

What struck me most was the depth of resentment toward traditional political parties, particularly the Nepali Congress, CPN-UML, and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Center). Before that, I had no clear idea that public anger toward these parties had reached such intensity. People were not just disappointed; they were exhausted. The frustration was layered—broken promises, recycled leaders, familiar faces, and the feeling that power circulates within a closed circle.

When the Sept 8–9 protests erupted, I was not surprised by the anger. What shocked me was the scale of destruction. My own office was burned, forcing me to work from home for several days. That moment reminded me that public frustration is not theoretical—it is real.. Sept 8–9 was a mixture of accumulated public anger and destruction carried out by some organized groups. It was a burst of frustration that had been building for years.

Following what many now call the GenZ wave, I deliberately changed my daily routine. I avoided private vehicles, walked more, used public transport, and engaged more directly with ordinary citizens. Friends found it unusual. But I wanted to feel the pulse of the electorate firsthand. Across conversations, one pattern was unmistakable: frustration is at an all-time high. Many voters say they want to support new parties. Yet that does not automatically translate into full trust in any single alternative.

Among college students aged 18–21, I observed something fascinating—a political tug-of-war within families. Parents try to pass down party loyalties; children resist. Traditional alignments are no longer guaranteed. Political parties have sensed this shift. For example, CPN-UML has circulated short videos in which parents attempt to persuade their children to remain loyal to traditional forces. But persuasion today meets skepticism.

One striking sentiment among GenZ voters is this: they want change and new leadership, yet they cannot fully trust those presenting themselves as alternatives. They are equally frustrated by speeches and by what they perceive as evasive responses from new political actors. Their demand is simple—clear answers and accountability.

Over the past few weeks, I have visited several places and closely followed reports from journalist friends across the country. Many of them have spoken to 500 to 700 voters in their respective constituencies. Bound by journalistic codes of conduct, they cannot be explicit in their projections, but their reporting and subtle social media hints suggest an environment increasingly hostile to traditional political parties. Outlets such as Setopati have been relatively more vocal in amplifying public sentiment. Even when some journalists remain restrained, the underlying message is clear: the political landscape feels different this time.

The GenZ voters I interacted with believe change is inevitable—regardless of which party wins. They argue that political survival now depends on reform. Yet they are equally critical of new faces. Transparency and accountability are central concerns. They question bold claims made by emerging leaders and remain wary of personality-driven politics.

Interestingly, many youths appreciated parts of the manifesto of the Nepali Congress, but they remain skeptical about its performance over the past two decades. Their thinking is nuanced. They are neither blindly anti-old nor blindly pro-new.

There is a growing perception that momentum may be building around a single party. Some compare the current mood to the Maoist wave of 2008. Whether that comparison holds true remains to be seen. What is undeniable, however, is that this election feels psychologically different. Still, it is not a one-sided race. Traditional parties retain strong organizational structures, loyal voter bases, and institutional experience. The competition remains open.

Certain issues have deeply influenced voters’ thinking. The Bhutanese refugee scam, the Baluwatar land controversy, and other corruption scandals frequently arise in conversations. People ask: Why were stronger efforts not made to control corruption?

In rural areas, empty homes stand as silent testimony to youth migration. Elderly parents question what forced their children to go abroad. Why have successive governments failed to create opportunities at home? Remittances sustain the national economy, but families demand sustainable domestic employment and a conducive environment for investing the money sent by their loved ones.

People are also concerned about accountability for the Sept 8–9 protests. Many believe those responsible for the killings of 19 students, arson and violence must be held accountable. As a result, some senior leaders and ministers are facing intense scrutiny in their constituencies.

My strongest impression is this: citizens no longer underestimate their own power. They demand tangible results, not lengthy speeches. The culture of treating political elites as untouchable is weakening. This election feels less like a routine democratic exercise and more like a referendum on political culture—a contest between continuity and change.

In the past, senior leaders of the major parties used to spend very little time in their constituencies. This time, however, they spent months in their constituencies and faced very tough and blunt questions from the people. Ordinary citizens are now more empowered and are asking direct questions to these senior leaders: Why haven’t you delivered until now? Why did you make false promises? Why didn’t you return to our constituency after winning the election?

Whether new or old forces prevail, governing will not be easy. Public scrutiny has intensified. Tea-shop conversations are sharper. Youths are more assertive. Families are politically divided. Trust is fragile.

Perhaps that vigilance—more than any party’s victory—is the strongest sign that democracy is alive.

At this point in time, it is impossible to predict which party will win. If what I have sensed and observed represents even a reasonable sample of the broader electorate, the outcome could be significantly different from previous elections. Yet waves of sentiment do not always translate into votes. This time, prediction is particularly difficult because of the range and depth of issues shaping voter behavior. The ballots will reveal the final verdict. Until then, the tea shops will continue to debate—and democracy will continue to breathe. 

The parliamentary election scheduled for March 5 has attracted significant international attention. Major powers such as the United States, India, and China are closely watching the development, assessing the possible poll outcomes and their implications for them. Although all have maintained a cautious public stance to avoid the appearance of interference, their interest reflects deeper strategic, political, and economic concerns.

Global scrutiny

The Sept 8-9 GenZ protests were unprecedented in terms of their speed of mobilization and institutional impact. Within hours, key state mechanisms appeared paralyzed. The scale and intensity of the protests surprised observers worldwide. For Nepal’s immediate neighbors, the implications were especially serious. India and China, both of which share borders with Nepal, were concerned about possible spillover effects. India’s concerns were heightened by its open border and deep socio-political ties with Nepal, prompting policymakers to consider how similar unrest might affect its own domestic environment. China, highly sensitive to instability in its neighborhood, also watched the situation closely. Against this backdrop, the international community is now carefully observing how Nepali leaders respond and what direction the country takes after the elections.

The rise of new political forces

The emergence of parties such as the Rastriya Swatantra Party and other alternative political forces signals a potential shift in Nepal’s political landscape. For decades, external partners have worked with fragile coalition governments marked by frequent leadership changes, inconsistent policies, and a widening gap between promises and implementation. Diplomatic and development engagements were often disrupted by ministerial reshuffles and shifting alliances. Many in the international community see the possible rise of new leadership as an opportunity for greater policy coherence, particularly in foreign affairs and economic governance. If new actors form the government, their foreign policy direction and governance priorities will be closely scrutinized. However, new political parties have not clearly laid out their foreign policy priorities in their election manifestos. However, they have recognized that handling the relationship with major powers is a difficult and delicate task. International observers are also watching leadership shifts within traditional parties, including the potential rise of figures such as Gagan Thapa within the Nepali Congress.

The politicization of foreign policy

Several key bilateral and multilateral initiatives have been drawn into domestic political debates. The 1950 Treaty and border issues with India have often been used for political mobilization rather than genuine agendas to be addressed through sustained diplomatic engagement. India will be closely watching how the new political parties or new leaders of traditional political parties handle those issues when they form the government. The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) compact with the United States became highly politicized, as did discussions around the Indo-Pacific Strategy and the State Partnership Program. Similarly, China’s Belt and Road Initiative faced controversy and delays. For major powers, such politicization complicates long-term planning and implementation. Many international observers believe that new political forces may avoid repeating the mistakes of past leaders by handling foreign policy matters with greater consistency and pragmatism.

Economic reform and the investment climate

Nepal’s strategic location and untapped economic potential have long attracted interest from both major and middle powers. The United States has consistently urged improvements in Nepal’s investment climate to encourage greater private-sector involvement. Under the Trump administration, economic and business interests were prioritized. With the shutdown of USAID, trade, investment, and China-related issues have become central pillars of Nepal–US engagement. China, India, Japan, Australia, and South Korea share similar concerns about Nepal’s business environment. Relationships with Japan, Australia, South Korea and other countries are equally important because they are in a well-position to invest in Nepal.  Despite some legal reforms, structural challenges—such as bureaucratic delays, regulatory uncertainty, and weak implementation—continue to discourage large-scale investment. International stakeholders hope that a new government, especially one with a strong reform mandate, will focus on improving the ease of doing business and advancing meaningful structural reforms.

Nepal’s geopolitical balancing act

Nepal has historically followed a policy of non-alignment while expanding diplomatic and economic ties with competing global powers. The international community is closely watching whether the new government that emerges after the GenZ movement will continue this approach or adopt a different strategic alignment. Over the past decade, China’s economic presence and political influence in Nepal have grown, prompting caution in India and among Western countries. The shifting balance of influence in Kathmandu carries broader regional implications. As a result, the upcoming election is viewed not merely as a domestic political event but as a potential turning point in Nepal’s external relations. Traditional political parties have generally adhered to the principle of non-alignment, while newer political forces have yet to clearly articulate their foreign policy positions. In fact, most parties have deliberately avoided taking firm stances on foreign policy issues in their election manifestos. The West will put emphasis on greater transparency, accountability in the new government’s handling of domestic and international issues. Like in the past, they will closely watch Nepal’s dealing with China. China will be more assertive to secure its security and strategic interests along with pressing the new government to implement the past agreement reached between two countries when Xi Jinping visited Nepal in 2019. India’s prime concerns are security, investment, new government’s approach to pending issues, China factor and new government’s approach with the West. The new priorities of the Trump administration in Nepal will be implementation of MCC, trade and investment, security cooperation and Nepal's response to the US policy on human trafficking and illegal migrants.

Conclusion

As election day approaches, major countries are publicly refraining from overt involvement or endorsement. Western nations appear open to the emergence of new political forces, hoping for improved governance and greater policy stability. India has indicated its willingness to work with any elected government, though it remains attentive to how new leaders might shape bilateral relations. China, while maintaining its principle of non-interference, is reportedly cautious about potential shifts that could weaken traditional communist forces in parliament and disrupt policy continuity. 

Nepal’s current election campaign has evolved into a contest not only of agendas but of tone, political memory, and competing claims over who can best safeguard the republic’s future. While most leaders publicly prioritize stability, governance, and development, their messaging styles—and the political histories they invoke—diverge sharply.

KP Sharma Oli and the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist–Leninist) (CPN-UML) frame the election as a decisive choice between tested leadership and risky experimentation. Oli’s tone is assertive, combative, and strongly nationalist.

His campaign heavily references two defining moments of his premiership: his stance during the 2015 India–Nepal border disruption and the 2020 constitutional amendment introducing Nepal’s revised political map, incorporating Kalapani, Lipulekh, and Limpiyadhura. Through video messages and public speeches, UML portrays these episodes as evidence of strong leadership defending sovereignty. The party has even framed Sept 8–9 protests as conspiratorial attempts to destabilize the nation and drawn parallels between Nepal’s emerging GenZ activism and “color revolutions,” suggesting foreign-influenced unrest.

The overarching message is clear: only experienced and established leaders can protect sovereignty and ensure economic prosperity. Oli argues that new parties are politically immature and incapable of governing effectively. Aware that youth voters are gravitating toward newer political forces, UML has produced targeted media content urging young voters to trust traditional parties.  Its slogan—CPN-UML now, because the country comes first—reinforces a narrative of national duty and continuity. Party leaders further suggest that Nepal has made significant progress since the democratic restoration of 1990, and that UML’s return is necessary to prevent regression.

In contrast, Pushpa Kamal Dahal adopts a more measured and institutional tone. Rather than foregrounding combative nationalism, he presents himself as a guardian of the federal democratic system born from the 2006 peace process. By invoking his partnership with Girija Prasad Koirala during the Comprehensive Peace Accord, Dahal underscores his claim as one of the architects of the republic. Earlier, he was aggressive toward Oli and aligning himself with new political parties, but of late he is stating that NC, UML and his party will have to collaborate with the forces that burnt down Singhadurbar.

His campaign frames the election as a choice between safeguarding constitutional achievements—federalism, secularism, inclusion—and risking political regression. Unlike Oli, Dahal’s criticism of emerging parties is restrained. He questions their preparedness and long-term seriousness but avoids labeling them threats to the nation. His tone reflects his evolution from insurgent commander to institutional stakeholder: reform, in his framing, must occur within the constitutional system, not through destabilizing rupture.

Gagan Kumar Thapa of the Nepali Congress seeks to position himself between old and new. His rhetoric emphasizes governance reform, anti-corruption, and institutional accountability while defending the democratic legacy of Nepal’s oldest democratic party. Rather than Oli’s defensive nationalism or Dahal’s legacy-based system protection, Thapa projects modernization within tradition, arguing that renewal can and must happen from inside established institutions. Thapa’s says that both Oli’s UML and new political parties are taking extremist positions which can be detrimental for the country. He urges people to vote for the NC’s centrist position.

Outside traditional party hierarchies, new political figures channel voter frustration more directly. Balendra Shah (Balen) employs a blunt, anti-elite style, appealing strongly to urban youth with calls for transparency and technocratic efficiency. His tone is disruptive and unapologetically critical of entrenched political culture. Balen Shah is highlighting the failure of the traditional political parties. He does not seem ideological but is trying to play on the failure of the traditional political parties.

Similarly, Rabi Lamichhane of the Rastriya Swatantra Party frames his campaign around injustice, accountability, and systemic reform. His rhetoric is often confrontational and personally charged, shaped in part by legal controversies that he presents as examples of political persecution. His appeal lies in grievance-driven populism and demands for structural overhaul. At the same time, Lamichhane’s tone is vindictive. He has publicly said that as traditional political parties registered politically motivated cases against him, he will take revenge.

Taken together, the campaign reveals a fundamental tension in Nepali politics. On one side stand leaders like Oli and, in a different register, Dahal—arguing that experienced hands are essential to preserve sovereignty, stability, and constitutional order. On the other side are reformist and anti-establishment figures who insist that generational change, accountability, and structural reform are necessary to move the country forward.

The debate is therefore less about stated goals—since nearly all claim to support stability and development—and more about political trust: whether Nepal’s future lies in consolidating the system built since 2006, or in reshaping it through new leadership and disruptive reform.

Nepal has been passing through a volatile political phase following the violent protests of Sept 9, during which key state installations—including the Parliament building, Singha Durbar, and the President’s Office—were set on fire. The unrest created a serious political and constitutional vacuum, raising concerns about state stability and security. In the aftermath, the role of the Nepali Army (NA) came under intense public scrutiny.

Many members of the public and political leaders questioned why the NA failed to protect vital government institutions such as Singhadurbar. The Army, however, defended its actions, arguing that its top priority was to prevent human casualties rather than protect physical infrastructure. According to senior NA officials, opening fire on protesters on September 9 could have triggered even more severe violence the following day. They maintain that if more lives had been lost, the situation might have spiraled beyond control of NA. This debate is likely to continue in the days ahead.

Despite the criticism, the Army’s conduct during and after the protests has been widely regarded as measured and responsible. Most notably, in the political vacuum that emerged after the unrest, the NA did not attempt to assume power. Instead, it facilitated the restoration of civilian rule. Following initial engagement with protest groups to help restore normalcy, the Army worked closely with President Ramchandra Paudel and major political parties to expedite the formation of a new government.

Between Sept 9 and 12, the NA coordinated with the President and senior leaders from major parties to accelerate the government formation process. The Army reportedly urged political actors to quickly establish a new administration, given the sensitive and volatile environment. By doing so, it sent a clear message that it had no political ambitions and remained committed to its professional and apolitical role.

A military takeover—even a temporary one until elections could be held—might have further complicated the crisis and jeopardized Nepal’s 2015 Constitution. Senior leaders such as Madhav Kumar Nepal and Pushpa Kamal Dahal publicly acknowledged the Army’s constructive role in restoring stability. The US Embassy in Nepal also praised President Paudel and Chief of the Army Staff Ashok Raj Sigdel for ensuring a smooth transition back to civilian governance.

Following the formation of the Karki-led government and the announcement of elections, the Army continued to emphasize that elections were the only viable path out of the crisis. On this issue, the NA, President Paudel, and Prime Minister Sushila Karki appeared aligned. The Army maintained that any postponement of elections could trigger another round of political instability and constitutional uncertainty. This firm position helped bring political parties together in support of the electoral process.

In preparation for the March 5 elections, the Nepal Army played a proactive role in strengthening security arrangements. Although constitutional questions sometimes arise regarding the mobilization of the Army for election security, the NA fully cooperated with the government. Given concerns about declining morale within the Nepal Police, there had been doubts about whether adequate security could be ensured. In response, the Army expedited logistical and operational preparations within a limited timeframe.

To date, no major incidents of election-related violence have been reported. The Army has continued patrol operations to maintain a secure environment. Just weeks ago, top political leaders had expressed concerns about their ability to campaign safely. However, most candidates are now actively engaged in electioneering without significant security complaints, aside from a few minor incidents.

The NA has provided security for elections since the restoration of democracy. For the March 5 polls, it deployed over 80,000 personnel. Traditionally, the Army is stationed in the outer security ring of polling centers, while police and local security forces manage the inner perimeter. However, in coordination with local authorities, the NA can assume responsibility for inner-circle security when threat levels are high.

Compared to previous elections, the Army’s role in this process has been more extensive and intensive, largely due to the extraordinary political circumstances. These elections are not taking place under normal conditions; they are viewed as a crucial step toward restoring constitutional order and political stability. By committing itself to ensuring free, fair, and timely elections, the Nepal Army has positioned the electoral process as central to resolving the ongoing crisis and putting the constitution back on track.