By Our Reporter
The election result has done something Nepali politics usually avoids, it forced parties to look in the mirror. And what they are seeing is not flattering.
Across the Nepali Congress, UML, NCP, and JSP Nepal, the story coming from the ground is strikingly similar. Leaders at the top chased power deals, ignored party cohesion, and in the process, weakened public trust. For once, this is not just an accusation from rivals or analysts. It is coming from their own cadres. That alone says a lot about how deep the frustration runs.
Start with the culture of alliances. On paper, alliances look like clever strategy. In practice, they turned into a credibility problem. Party workers spent years fighting opponents, only to be told during elections to campaign for the same figures. That is not strategy, that is confusion dressed up as politics. Over time, it wore people down. This election, that quiet resentment snapped. Voters did not just shift. Even loyal cadres stopped listening. When your own base starts ignoring you, the problem is not messaging, it is trust.
The numbers show the damage clearly. Once dominant parties have been reduced to survival mode. Congress, UML, and NCP all saw sharp drops. That did not happen overnight. It built up over years of short-term deals, weak internal discipline, and leadership that treated parties like vehicles rather than institutions.
Inside the Congress, the cracks are wide open. Factional lines around Sher Bahadur Deuba, Gagan Thapa, and Shekhar Koirala turned the party into competing camps instead of a single force. When leaders pull in different directions, the campaign loses shape. Reports also point to internal sabotage, which is a polite way of saying some leaders preferred their own party to lose if it weakened rivals inside the party. That kind of politics may help individuals, but it damages the party in the long run.
The handling of the Gen Z protests added another layer. Being in government comes with responsibility. The use of force and the narratives that followed hurt the party’s image. Voters may forgive mistakes, but they do not forget how leaders act under pressure. That episode seems to have stuck.
UML’s problem looks different on the surface but leads to the same place. A strong negative perception around KP Sharma Oli appears to have shaped voter behavior. Candidates with decent profiles still struggled because voters linked them directly to the leadership. On top of that, complaints about ticket distribution and favoritism weakened internal morale. When party workers feel sidelined, they do not campaign with energy. Some simply step back. Others quietly work against the party. Either way, the outcome is the same.
The NCP seems to be dealing with something even more serious, a breakdown of internal trust. Reports that even central leaders voted against their own candidates sound almost absurd, but they point to deep dissatisfaction. Add to that weak organization, lack of clear messaging, and failure to present past achievements, and the result becomes easier to understand. A party cannot ask voters to believe in it when its own leaders are not convinced.
JSP Nepal’s fall is more straightforward but no less telling. Repeated splits, shifting alliances, and the perception that the party revolves around a few leaders have taken a toll. In Madhes, where identity and representation matter, failure to deliver visible results has cost the party heavily. Voters moved on.
Then comes the question of accountability, the part where politics usually turns evasive. Gagan Thapa’s resignation stands out because it is rare. It signals acceptance of responsibility, at least in form. In contrast, other leaders have stayed put, some avoiding even a serious review. That sends a message, losses are collective, but accountability is optional. People notice that.
All of this is unfolding at a time when a new force, the Rastriya Swatantra Party, is stepping into power with a strong majority. That changes the stakes. The old parties are weakened, divided, and trying to understand what went wrong. RSP, meanwhile, faces a different kind of pressure. It has the numbers, but also the expectations.
The irony is hard to miss. The same failures that damaged older parties, top heavy decisions, weak internal democracy, and disregard for dissent, are the very traps RSP must avoid. A strong government can pass laws quickly, but without effective scrutiny, it can also lose direction just as fast.
With a weak opposition, the responsibility to keep debate alive does not disappear. It shifts. Part of it now sits with the ruling side itself. That is not how politics usually works here, which is exactly why this moment matters.
Nepal’s voters have sent a message. They are less patient with old habits. Parties that ignore that signal risk fading further. Parties that learn from it might still recover. And the new party in power, for all its momentum, is only one bad cycle away from facing the same verdict.
Login to add a comment