By Our Reporter
The debacle of Madhesh based parties from the latest parliamentary election may appear sudden, yet the decline has been unfolding for years. The defeat reflects a long period in which these parties gradually moved away from the cause that once gave them purpose. Internal rivalries, constant factional splits, and a growing focus on power politics weakened their credibility. Voters in the plains watched these developments for more than a decade. In the recent election, they finally responded.
The scale of the collapse is striking. For the first time since the early 1990s, no Madhesh based party secured a direct seat in the House of Representatives. None crossed the proportional representation threshold either. In some constituencies, candidates from these parties even failed to secure enough votes to retain their deposits. Such a sweeping rejection usually signals deep public frustration.
This outcome is particularly ironic given the origins of Madhesh politics. These parties emerged from genuine grievances. For many years people in the plains felt excluded from state institutions and political representation. Citizenship concerns and cultural recognition were also sensitive issues. In response to these frustrations, political organizing began in the early 1990s. The Nepal Sadbhavana Party became the first organized voice of the plains. When it entered parliament in 1991 with six seats, the number looked modest, but its meaning was significant. Leaders from the Madhesh began raising questions of citizenship, language, and representation at the national level.
The movement gained stronger momentum after the Madhesh uprising of 2007. That moment reshaped the national political debate. Demands for federal restructuring, inclusive governance, and fair representation gained strong support. The 2008 Constituent Assembly election marked the peak of Madhesh political influence. As Madhesh leaders gained influence in Kathmandu, their focus gradually shifted. Instead of strengthening a unified political agenda, many became absorbed in coalition politics. Cabinet negotiations and ministerial positions began to dominate discussions. Every change in government created another round of internal disputes. Leaders who once stood together during protests began competing for influence within the system.
Party divisions soon became common. A disagreement about joining or leaving a government frequently produced a new faction. Leaders who had built their reputations through the language of identity and dignity started appearing more interested in securing government positions. Each split weakened the political base that the Madhesh movement had built. These divisions also damaged public trust. When parties that claim to represent a social movement repeatedly fracture over government posts, voters begin to question their intentions. Many people in the plains started asking whether the struggle still centered on representation or had simply become a route to power.
Early signs of decline appeared in previous elections. The results of 2013 showed that public confidence was already weakening. A partial recovery in 2017 demonstrated that support could return when parties stayed closer to public concerns and kept some distance from government bargaining. Yet that lesson was short lived. Soon after the election the same leaders returned to coalition politics and repeated earlier mistakes.
Provincial politics added another layer to the problem. Governments in Madhesh Province changed frequently as parties rearranged alliances and leadership positions. Disputes over chief minister posts, cabinet distribution, and party control dominated political discussions. Instead of demonstrating stable governance, the province often became a stage for constant political reshuffling.
Public dissatisfaction grew stronger after the 2022 election. Coalition changes, leadership disputes, and court battles over government formation became common features of politics in the province. While leaders focused on political calculations, everyday governance remained weak. Parties that once criticized exclusion began to resemble the same political establishment they had opposed.
This long background explains the scale of the recent defeat. The election did not suddenly erase Madhesh parties. It simply revealed the consequences of years of disappointment among voters who felt that the original goals of the movement had been abandoned.
Another irony has appeared in the aftermath. Some figures within Madhesh politics now praise the rise of Balen as a sign of change. Yet Balen himself once distanced his public identity from the Terai surname Sah and later adopted Shah, a name linked with former rulers and hill elites. The enthusiasm for such a figure suggests a deeper confusion in the ideological direction of Madhesh politics. Parties that once mobilized around Madhesi identity now support a political image that seems far removed from that identity.
Login to add a comment