By Deepak Joshi Pokhrel
In the Bhagavad Gita, Lord Krishna says, “Nothing is permanent, and change is constant.” This saying has once again been proven in the ongoing counting of the House of Representatives election results in Nepal. The ongoing ballot counting clearly suggests that the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) is to form the new government with a sweeping majority, ending the dominance and hegemony of old and traditional parties—mainly the Nepali Congress, CPN-UML, and the Maoists—which have kept the people in the dark for decades.
While the counting is still under progress and the results declared so far indicate a landslide victory for the RSP, it is worth examining what led the old and traditional parties to face such a humiliating defeat.
After the restoration of democracy in 1990, the Nepali Congress—which claims to represent democracy—and the CPN (UML) ruled the country several times. However, they never tried to address the day-to-day struggles of ordinary people. Instead, they were busy consolidating their power through collaborative governance arrangements. Logically speaking, both parties sold lofty promises to the innocent Nepalese people while institutionalizing corruption and nepotism in the country, thereby fueling greater disenchantment among the public.
From the very beginning, the CPN-UML was beset by internal bickering and constant fighting over power sharing. There were several interest groups, factional groups, and sub-factional divisions within the party. Leaders at the helm were often seen publicly criticizing each other. This is evident in the case of Madan Bhandari, who was widely liked by the people but fell prey to the alleged designs of internal leaders. His mysterious death remains unsolved, raising questions about the present leadership both within and outside the party.
Fast forward to recent years: the CPN-UML’s image was further eroded during the era of KP Sharma Oli. Many party leaders were dissatisfied with Oli’s brinkmanship. He took several decisions without consulting party leaders, ignoring the spirit of collective leadership. In 2017, party leaders were taken aback by the announcement of the merger between the two communist parties just ahead of the general election. Highly placed sources say that Oli did not even inform his close comrades about this development. In plain words, Oli’s way of running the party was oligarchic, which further eroded the party’s image.
Not only leadership failures but also the party’s inability to understand the people contributed to its downfall. Despite ruling the country several times, it failed to respond to public concerns. While ordinary people were struggling with day-to-day survival, party leaders were busy consolidating their power. Corruption, unemployment, a culture of impunity, nepotism, and favoritism were at their peak while the CPN-UML was in power.
The party’s credibility and legitimacy reached their lowest ebb last year when students staged protests against the enforced ban on social media and corruption in September 2025. What started as a peaceful protest turned into a tragedy when police indiscriminately gunned down innocent protesters. More than 77 Nepali youths were reportedly killed by the Oli-led government. All this happened while Oli was in power. What was even worse was that he appeared arrogant and unrepentant, failing to apologize for the tragedy. As a result, Oli was ousted and Parliament was dissolved, paving the way for parliamentary elections.
The Grand Old Party—the Nepali Congress—was no better. In recent years, the party was mired in controversies. Internal bickering and wrangling over power sharing became common. Younger leaders were unhappy with the party’s functioning, leading to growing disenchantment. The party was deeply divided between the establishment faction led by Sher Bahadur Deuba and rival factions often associated with Shekhar Koirala and Gagan Thapa. This infighting paralysed decision-making and created the image of a “shattered house.”
Furthermore, the party was perceived as being dominated by the old guard, which failed to connect with the aspirations of the younger generation. It also faced allegations that it had compromised its values and principles by forming an unnatural alliance with communist parties, something that upset many party supporters and sympathizers.
Like the CPN-UML, the Nepali Congress was also criticized for its handling of the Gen-Z protests. It was part of the coalition government during the student uprising in September last year. The party was accused of failing to address the grievances of the youth, who felt alienated and disillusioned by the republican system.
The approach and strategy of the former rebels—the Maoist Centre—were initially simple. While the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML were failing to meet the aspirations of the people, the Maoists reached out to communities across the country. They promoted the narrative that the traditional parties had failed the nation. This narrative resonated with many voters. As a result, people gave them a mandate to lead the country toward prosperity and rapid economic growth.
However, like the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML, the former rebels eventually became preoccupied with consolidating power, ignoring the promises made during the elections. They failed to successfully transition from guerrilla fighters to responsible parliamentary actors, leading to shortcomings in strengthening democratic institutions. Furthermore, the party experienced an ideological decline, becoming increasingly driven by pragmatism and political expediency, which created internal divisions.
The Maoist-led government was accused of promoting nepotism, rampant corruption, and high-profile scandals. It also faced allegations of encouraging a culture of impunity and serious human rights violations. When assuming power, the Maoist supremo had famously said that he would transform Nepal into “Switzerland within a decade.” However, his remark later became a subject of ridicule after his government collapsed under the weight of its failures.
Now a very pertinent question is being raised at every level: Is this the end of the old and traditional parties in Nepal?
It is still too early to say whether this marks the end of the old political forces. Given Nepal’s political experience, anything is possible. They may stage a strong comeback, or they may gradually fade away from the political landscape. For now, the nation can only wait and watch.
Login to add a comment