Elections, political parties, and individual leaders alone cannot sustain a democracy; its true health depends on the ideas guiding those in power. Democracy fulfills its promise only when governance is rooted in competence, thoughtful decision-making, and a commitment to the long-term public good rather than short-term political maneuvering. Crucially, this requires independent institutions to ensure that accountability is mandatory. Without leaders who possess both the vision to inspire and the capacity to execute, the system fragments, becomes unstable, and ultimately fails its citizens.
Despite having more than one hundred registered political parties—including seven with national status such as NC, CPN-UML, CPN-MC, RSP, RPP, JSP, and JP—Nepal remains trapped in chronic political instability. Politics has devolved into a scramble for power rather than a contest of ideas, and the abundance of leaders has not translated into effective governance. Even after the March 5, 2026 elections were announced following the Gen-Z uprising, major parties failed to articulate clear plans. This paralysis only began to shift when RSP leader Rabi Lamichhane was granted bail, allowing him to re-enter the political arena and influence the electoral process.
There are many explanations for the failure of Mr. K.P. Oli’s strong-majority government, but one fact stands out: it lacked ideas, vision, and consistent action. While constitutional amendment was repeatedly invoked as its primary goal, the government’s conduct suggested otherwise. Power was pursued less to advance a national agenda than to safeguard entrenched interests. The Gen-Z uprising offers a hard-earned lesson for Nepal’s democracy: governments driven by short-term maneuvering and political survival cannot sustain themselves.
Business ideas matter
The NC remains reluctant to renew its leadership, preparing instead to contest elections under Mr. Deuba. Gagan Thapa stands out as charismatic, knowledgeable, and equipped with a clear vision for economic development, yet his voice remains marginal within the party. The CPN-UML has endorsed Mr. Oli again, as if his previous tenure had been an unqualified success. Meanwhile, the CPN-MC appears preoccupied with renaming itself and redesigning its symbol—an implicit admission that the ideas that once sustained it no longer resonate. The RPP remains largely disengaged from the Gen-Z movement, while the JSP and JP have fractured into multiple factions. Other former prime ministers continue to circulate among party formations because Nepal’s electorate remains strongly ideology-driven—but ideology alone cannot return them to power without fresh ideas and credible policies. In today’s connected, knowledge-driven society, the old parties—NC, CPN-UML, CPN-MC, and RPP—have been tested and found wanting. They offer no coherent governing agenda, only recycled slogans and tactical maneuvering, while the JSP and JP remain largely regional and fragmented.
In contrast, the RSP has emerged as Nepal’s most politically dynamic force. By acknowledging the Gen-Z movement, RSP president Lamichhane demonstrated notable political acumen, using the opportunity to reassert his influence in the electoral arena. By merging with smaller parties and forging a historic alliance with Kathmandu Mayor Balen Shah and technocrat Kulman Ghising, he helped assemble an unprecedented coalition that challenges long-standing democratic norms. Positioned as the alliance’s prime ministerial candidate, Shah symbolizes a departure from rigid party hierarchies. Lamichhane’s maneuver signals a shift: elections are increasingly personality-driven; seniority matters less; outsiders can aspire to the premiership; and no one owns a party. While energizing voters, this approach carries risks—coalitions may be fragile, and populist overreach could threaten long-term governance. Unsurprisingly, the alliance has already drawn national and international attention.
Although court orders must be respected, Lamichhane’s bail after the Gen-Z uprising marks a second political life. But survival alone does not constitute leadership; he must now move beyond personality-driven politics and build a party grounded in substantive policy, institutional discipline, and a coherent national vision.
For Shah, the challenge is different but equally demanding. He must articulate concrete, implementable plans for economic development, urban governance, and youth empowerment—ensuring that technical competence translates into effective governance rather than reactive rhetoric. Nepal’s crisis is not merely political instability; it is ideological and intellectual stagnation. This is where Shah has the opportunity to distinguish himself. He must be proactive rather than reactive. One concrete policy he could champion is a comprehensive investigation into the properties and wealth accumulated by past political leaders. Bringing these assets under proper taxation and punishing illicit accumulation would signal a genuine commitment to accountability, restore public trust, and demonstrate that leadership is measured by integrity and competence rather than personal gain. To enhance credibility, such an effort should be pursued transparently and in collaboration with independent anti-corruption campaigners and Gen-Z activists who have emerged as moral voices in recent movements.
Nepal does not lack talent; it lacks a governing philosophy capable of translating talent into sustained, coherent action. Shah has so far remained largely silent on broader political questions. In his new role, he must speak clearly, act decisively, and demonstrate strategic and ideological clarity. Most importantly, he must draw a sharp and credible contrast with the old regime. The election campaign itself should serve as proof of political maturity and seriousness. Unlike the money-intensive campaigns of the traditional establishment, both Shah and Lamichhane have shown that inexpensive, grassroots mobilization is possible. They should now scale this model nationwide.
Shah’s leadership must also champion institutional reform—particularly within the judiciary and law enforcement—to make accountability credible and durable. He should publicly declare his political, legal, economic, and media advisers, along with as much of the prospective cabinet as possible, before the election. Such transparency would be a bold democratic gesture, allowing voters to know exactly who—and what kind of leadership—they are endorsing.
After Shah’s rise as Kathmandu Mayor and the emergence of the RSP, established parties—long insulated from competition—have begun to feel genuine pressure. With Lamichhane, Shah, and Ghising reshaping public expectations, competence has become essential across the spectrum. This shift is loosening rigid ideological loyalties and opening space for genuine swing voters. Even if the RSP were to win and later falter, it would still mark a victory for Nepalese democracy: unlike entrenched legacy parties, it can be voted out—reaffirming that political power is conditional and, in the process, compelling older parties to strengthen internal democracy, renew leadership, and attempt a comeback based on performance rather than entitlement. The era of mere power politics is waning; the era of ideas is now dawning.
The author is an Associate Professor at Tennessee State University, Tennessee, USA.
