Eighteen months after mass protests toppled the government of long-time prime minister Sheikh Hasina, Bangladesh has sworn in a new elected government led by Tarique Rahman of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP).
At the same time, Nepal is preparing for parliamentary elections on March 5 amid lingering questions about reform, stability, and the durability of its republican system. Together, the two countries present contrasting pathways in South Asia’s evolving democratic landscape.
Bangladesh’s new government emerged from an unusual democratic exercise: parliamentary elections were held alongside a referendum on constitutional reform. The referendum sought to institutionalize the demands of the 2024 youth-led protest movement, which called for greater accountability, stronger checks and balances, and the depoliticization of state institutions.
With this majority, the government is positioned to pursue constitutional amendments through a proposed constitutional council, potentially reshaping the balance of power among the executive, legislature, and judiciary. Reform priorities are expected to include strengthening electoral credibility, ensuring judicial independence, enhancing transparency, and safeguarding civil liberties. Yet the transition is not without risk. The Awami League was barred from contesting the election, a move that critics warn could fuel political resentment and street mobilization.
In contrast, Nepal heads into elections without having undertaken major reforms demanded by the Sept 8–9 protests, largely driven by GenZ activists. The protests reflected deep frustration with corruption, patronage networks, weak public services, and a perceived lack of accountability across political institutions.
Unlike Bangladesh’s reform-first electoral approach, Nepal has opted to proceed directly to the polls. Skeptics argue that without pre-election structural changes, the vote may simply reproduce the existing power dynamics. Key public demands—restoring trust in institutions, reinforcing the rule of law, ensuring judicial and legislative independence, and building a merit-based bureaucracy—remain largely aspirational. The challenge for any incoming government will be translating campaign rhetoric into concrete institutional reform.
Nepal’s proportional representation system and fragmented party landscape make a single-party majority unlikely. A hung parliament and coalition government appear the most probable outcome. While coalition politics is familiar terrain in Kathmandu, past alliances have often been unstable, slowing policy implementation and weakening reform momentum. Failure to deliver tangible change could deepen youth disillusionment and embolden anti-establishment forces.
Adding to Nepal’s political complexity is the renewed activism of former monarch Gyanendra Shah. In a recent Democracy Day message, he criticized the electoral process and advocated for the restoration of the monarchy. Domestic reform efforts in both countries will unfold under the watchful eye of international stakeholders. Western governments are closely monitoring commitments to democratic governance, transparency, and anti-corruption. In Nepal, reform-oriented voices within the Nepali Congress and independent leaders such as Balendra Shah have attracted attention for emphasizing accountability and administrative reform.
For Nepal, relations with India remain crucial. The open border, deep economic ties, and longstanding sensitivities over boundary disputes and treaty arrangements make New Delhi a central actor in Kathmandu’s foreign policy calculus. India will be closely watching how the new government approaches unresolved bilateral issues. Simultaneously, engagement with China remains strategically significant. Chinese investment is central to Nepal’s infrastructure and development ambitions, particularly under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). However, expanded Chinese involvement is likely to be scrutinized by India and Western partners, placing Nepal in a familiar geopolitical balancing act.
