For more than a decade, Nepali politics has been defined by three dominant figures: KP Sharma Oli, Sher Bahadur Deuba, and Pushpa Kamal Dahal. As party chiefs and multiple-time prime ministers, they have established themselves as indomitable forces. Among the three, it now seems almost certain that Oli and Dahal will retain control of their respective parties for at least the next five years—if not longer.
In the past two weeks, the CPN-UML and CPN (Maoist Center) held their Central Committee and Standing Committee meetings, respectively. The outcomes of these meetings will have far-reaching implications, particularly regarding leadership transitions. Both Oli and Dahal have further solidified their grip by weakening and isolating potential rivals. These developments starkly contrast with the widespread public desire, especially among the youth, for a generational change in leadership.
A significant section of Nepal’s youth continues to call for immediate leadership renewal. Many believe that since the same leaders have held sway over both party and government for more than three decades and failed to deliver, new leaders should be given a chance. Having become prime minister multiple times, these leaders have used the power and resources of the state to entrench their positions. Ministerial portfolios and key appointments were handed to loyalists, while dissenting voices were sidelined.
There have also been instances where state law enforcement agencies were allegedly used to harass internal party opponents. As a result, many young leaders have either aligned themselves with top leaders or remained silent, compromising the core values of intra-party democracy and leadership handover.
The internal dynamics of major parties tell a different story altogether. Youth leaders of NC, UML and Maoist Center—who once demanded a leadership transition—are now retreating from those positions. In recent Central and Standing Committee meetings, not only did they refrain from calling for change, but many also openly endorsed the current leadership.
The UML’s Central Committee meeting cleared the way for Oli to lead the party for a third consecutive term. The party decided to amend its statute, removing the 70-year age limit and the two-term cap tailored specifically to facilitate Oli’s continuation. But more than just a policy shift, both senior and youth leaders publicly declared that there is “no alternative” to Oli. Even former President Bidya Devi Bhandari’s attempt to challenge Oli by reentering active politics was thwarted; the party revoked her general membership for doing so.
Oli is now virtually assured to be re-elected party chairman at the UML’s 11th General Convention, expected later this year. Party leaders argue that Oli's leadership is essential to securing victory in the 2027 elections. In reality, he may continue leading the party as long as his health allows. Since taking the helm in 2015, Oli has consolidated power, sidelined rivals, and built a loyal inner circle. Two pivotal moments helped him secure dominance: the departure of senior leaders like Madhav Kumar Nepal and Jhala Nath Khanal, and the failed leadership challenge by Bhim Rawal, who was eventually expelled. That episode sent a clear message: challenging the leadership comes with consequences. More recently, Brinda Pandey and Usha Kiran Timalsina were suspended for six months for voicing dissent, reinforcing the party’s intolerance for internal opposition.
A similar scenario unfolded in the Maoist Center’s Standing Committee meeting. Senior leader Janardhan Sharma raised the issue of leadership change, only to be rebuked by nearly the entire committee. Out of 50 members, just three supported his proposal that Dahal, who has been at the helm since the 1980s, should begin transitioning party leadership to the next generation. Rather than supporting Sharma, other members criticized him. The party issued a warning that no leader should make public statements against its leadership. “There is a growing tendency to speak against party leadership and violate party discipline,” said Maoist leader Haribol Gajurel.
The situation in the NC remains uncertain. Party President Deuba is unlikely to amend the party statute to pursue a third term. Leaders Shekhar Koirala and Gagan Thapa appear poised to contest the presidency. A third candidate from the Deuba camp may also run, while other senior leaders, who lack serious electoral prospects, may enter the race merely to secure bargaining positions in the party or government. Despite this, Deuba remains a strong presence, and the party's top leadership appears to be consolidating its hold.
Meanwhile, in the CPN (Unified Socialist), a breakaway faction of UML, Madhav Kumar Nepal maintains tight control despite facing corruption allegations. He has publicly warned senior leader Jhala Nath Khanal to leave the party for speaking against him. Despite mounting pressure, Nepal has refused to hand over the reins to a younger generation.
With these developments, the debate around leadership handover in major Nepali parties has significantly lost momentum. Over the years, these senior leaders, each of whom has held the prime ministership multiple times, have consistently used state resources to strengthen their internal party positions and marginalize opposition. With youth leaders increasingly dependent on the senior leadership for political opportunities and resources, they remain unable, or unwilling, to mount a meaningful challenge.
