As political parties escalate their election campaigns, the Sept 8–9 GenZ protests have transformed from a moment of civic outrage into a central battlefield of electoral politics. What began as student-led demonstrations demanding the lifting of the social media ban and stronger action against corruption has now been reframed by political actors into competing narratives of accountability, responsibility, and legitimacy.
The Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) has positioned the killing of 19 students during the Sept 8 protests as evidence of state repression under then Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli. By directly holding Oli accountable, RSP is attempting to challenge the moral authority of the traditional political establishment, especially the CPN-UML. This framing resonates strongly with younger voters who view the state’s response to the protests as excessive and emblematic of a deeper culture of impunity. This has forced UML Chairperson Oli to come up with a long elaboration that he did not order to shoot the protestors on Sept 8.
The political stakes rose sharply after Balendra Shah (Balen), former mayor of Kathmandu Metropolitan City, joined RSP as a senior leader and was projected as its prime ministerial candidate. Shah’s refusal to share a debate platform with Oli, citing the latter’s alleged responsibility for the deaths, is not merely a personal stance—it is a calculated political move. By refusing engagement, Shah seeks to frame the election as a moral judgment rather than a contest of rhetoric, thereby forcing Oli and UML onto the defensive.
In response, traditional parties—particularly UML—have attempted to counter this narrative by shifting the focus from Sept 8 to Sept 9. UML leaders argue that Shah himself should be held accountable for the arson and destruction of state institutions, including Singha Durbar, that took place on September 9. Criticism of Shah for failing to mobilize fire engines during the attacks is meant to undermine his image as a decisive and effective administrator.
RSP’s decision to officially project Shah as its prime ministerial candidate marks a significant departure from Nepal’s recent political practice and signals growing confidence within the party. The declaration of prime ministerial candidates by major parties—Shah for RSP, KP Sharma Oli for UML, Gagan Kumar Thapa for Nepali Congress, and Pushpa Kamal Dahal for the Nepali Communist Party—has personalized the election to an unprecedented degree. Shah’s direct contest with Oli in Jhapa-5 has further nationalized the race, transforming a constituency battle into a symbolic clash between old power and political disruption.
Shah’s nationwide campaign and the public enthusiasm it has generated have clearly unsettled traditional parties. This unease is reflected in the rhetoric of Pushpa Kamal Dahal, who has shifted from cautious sympathy toward Shah to open criticism. Dahal’s claim that domestic and foreign forces are investing heavily in promoting leaders who gain popularity through “stunts” reveals an anxiety shared by established parties: the erosion of ideological politics and organizational discipline in favor of personality-driven movements. His assertion that GenZ movements and new political parties are backed by foreign forces echoes a familiar tactic in Nepali politics—delegitimizing dissent by externalizing it.
The Nepali Congress has attempted to distance itself from this polarizing debate. By refusing to take sides on either Sept 8 or Sept 9 and instead invoking “Sept 10,” the party appears to be pursuing a strategy of calculated ambiguity. While this may help avoid immediate controversy, it risks making the party appear evasive at a moment when public demand for accountability is high.
Taken together, the emerging electoral landscape suggests a far more confrontational and emotionally charged campaign than in previous elections. The struggle to define Sept 8 and Sept 9 is not merely about dates or events; it is about controlling the narrative of state violence, civic responsibility, and political legitimacy. As these narratives harden, the risk of heightened polarization—and even election-related violence in certain constituencies—cannot be dismissed. Ultimately, this election may hinge less on policy debates and more on which version of recent history voters choose to believe.
