By Our Reporter
Nepal’s recent election result grew out of frustration that had been building for years. Many citizens had become increasingly disappointed with political leaders. The Gen Z protest movement of September last year later brought those feelings into the open. When elections were held after the protests, voters used the ballot to express their frustration.
The message from voters was clear. A large number of people no longer trusted the traditional political parties. For decades, Nepal’s politics was dominated by two major forces. One was the Nepali Congress. The other consisted of communist parties such as the CPN UML and the Maoists. These parties played major roles in the country’s political history. They led movements against the Panchayat system and helped establish democracy and later the republican system.
But past achievements cannot secure permanent support. Over time, many citizens began to feel that these parties had drifted away from the values they once promoted. They continued to speak about democracy, equality, and social justice. Yet many voters felt their actions no longer reflected those ideals.
The Nepali Congress once promoted democratic reform and social justice. Its founders were influenced by democratic movements in South Asia. In recent years, though, the party struggled to maintain a clear direction. Much of its internal politics became centered on leadership rivalry and factional competition. Leaders focused on gaining influence within the party rather than presenting clear policies. This gradually weakened public confidence.
Communist parties faced similar criticism. Their names continued to include words such as socialism and communism, but many citizens believed those ideas remained mostly in speeches rather than guiding real policies. In practice, politics often appeared to revolve around competition for power. The Maoist movement once promised major social change. It fought a long insurgency in the name of equality and transformation. Yet after joining mainstream politics, many citizens felt the party had gradually become part of the same political culture it once opposed.
The UML also faced criticism. Its leaders often relied on strong nationalist rhetoric and large development promises. But many voters felt those promises rarely translated into visible improvements in their daily lives. These experiences slowly reduced public trust.
Another reason for growing dissatisfaction was the close connection between political parties and public institutions. Over time, many government offices appeared influenced by party networks.
This created a perception that citizens needed political connections to receive basic services. A farmer seeking agricultural support might approach a party leader. A patient seeking treatment might believe political influence could speed up the process. Even routine administrative tasks sometimes seemed easier with political backing. Such practices created frustration and a sense of unfairness. Citizens without political connections often felt ignored.
Corruption scandals deepened the problem. High profile cases, including the fake Bhutanese refugee scandal, reinforced the belief that politics had become a path for personal enrichment rather than public service. As these problems accumulated, dissatisfaction grew.
At first it appeared as criticism. Later it turned into anger. Eventually, for many voters, it became open rejection of the traditional parties.
Young voters felt this shift most strongly. Many members of the younger generation did not personally witness the earlier political struggles led by the Congress and communist parties. Those historical achievements therefore carried less emotional weight for them.
Instead, what they saw were corruption scandals, political disputes, and slow economic progress. The Gen Z protest movement reflected this mood. It showed that many young citizens felt ignored by the political system.
When elections followed the protests, that dissatisfaction turned into votes.This situation created an opening for a new political force. The Rastriya Swatantra Party managed to take advantage of that moment. The party relied heavily on digital communication. Social media became one of its strongest tools.
Social media impacts
Online posts criticizing established political leaders spread rapidly across platforms such as Facebook, TikTok, and YouTube. Memes and short videos amplified public frustration.
The image of Balen Shah also played a major role. His earlier victory in the Kathmandu mayoral election had already demonstrated the influence of digital communication in politics.
His brief messages, direct tone, and confident public image attracted younger voters. Popular social media pages that regularly criticized traditional politicians also helped amplify his visibility.
Behind this effort was a small group of young supporters who understood how digital platforms work. They knew how messages spread and how public attention shifts quickly online.
Through these strategies, the RSP turned digital popularity into electoral success. Other figures also attempted to present themselves as alternatives. Leaders such as Gyanendra Shahi and Rabindra Mishra promoted different political messages. Some smaller groups tried to organize new political movements.
However, none of them generated the same national momentum. The RSP succeeded because it connected widespread public frustration with a focused political campaign.
Still, winning an election is only the first step. Governing the country will be more difficult. The new leadership must decide how it will use the strong mandate given by voters. One path would involve strengthening democratic institutions and reducing political interference in public services. Another path would repeat the same practices that weakened earlier governments.
Important policy questions remain unresolved. Debates continue about federal governance, minority rights, identity politics, and development priorities. Projects such as the proposed Nijgadh airport raise environmental concerns, while urban development policies affect landless families and informal settlements.
The way the new government responds to these issues will reveal its true direction. In the past, both the congress and communist parties promised democracy and social justice but often failed to deliver them in practice. The coming years will show whether it brings genuine change or eventually follows the same political path that once pushed voters to search for an alternative.
Login to add a comment