Rastriya Swatantra Party risks becoming a South Asian sequel no one wanted, repeating Aam Aadmi Party's early days in Delhi, mixed with Sri Lanka's Aragalaya disappointment and Bangladesh's one-party drama, all unfolding in Nepal's already strained democracy. The party still has a choice: become a warning for others or show that an anti-establishment group can mature without losing its way. AAP is the clearest comparison. It started with a strong promise to turn India's anti-corruption anger into a new, rule-based politics. Riding on public frustration with old parties, it won big in Delhi but soon faced the same temptations as other outsiders. Dissenters were pushed out, a personality cult formed, and the party began to look more like a tightly controlled start-up led by its top leaders than a citizens' movement. The main lesson for RSP is not that AAP failed, but that anger and charisma are just the beginning. Without internal democracy, clear rules for money and candidate selection, and the ability to govern, RSP will follow the same path: quick rise, messy middle, and a slow decline into what it once opposed. Sri Lanka's Aragalaya offers another warning. The leaderless youth protests in 2022 showed how far public anger can go when people are fed up with corruption, family rule, and economic mismanagement. The Rajapaksas were forced out, Galle Face became a symbol of hope, and it seemed like the old system was over. But soon, a well-connected insider was elected by parliament, supported by many of the same groups that caused the crisis. The protests had real energy, but there was no organized political group to turn that energy into real change. RSP must avoid this trap after Nepal's youth uprising. If it stays just a mood, a TV event, or a platform for a few big names, the old leaders will simply regroup, find a new figurehead, and continue as before. Bangladesh shows what happens when anti-corruption sentiment is not translated into a strong, competitive party system. Civil society has worked for years to expose corruption, demand reforms, and hold leaders accountable. But during elections, the ruling party often dominates, and the opposition is barely present. Citizens' moral energy is real, but without strong, principled parties, it gets absorbed or crushed. For RSP, the lesson is clear: it cannot just be the conscience of the country. It also needs to be its nervous system. This means building party structures that can withstand losses, infiltration, and pressure, while remaining clearly distinct from the old parties it seeks to replace. There is a common pattern in South Asia: parties value institutions only when they are in opposition. In India, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh, old parties complain about democracy when out of power but restrict it once they return. AAP has also been accused of centralizing power and not tolerating criticism as it settled into Delhi. In Sri Lanka, former reformers quickly adapted to a system that concentrates power. In Bangladesh, leaders use 'stability' and 'development' to justify limiting dissent. RSP must avoid this pattern from the start. If it only demands transparency and fair appointments from others, but quietly changes the system for its own benefit, it will offer nothing new except a younger face on an old problem. Nepal's history makes these issues even more pressing. The country is known for revolts that change leaders but not the system itself. The monarchy is gone, Maoists have been in government, and new constitutions have been announced, but patronage, impunity, and personality-driven parties remain strong. The 2025 youth uprising, sparked by a social media ban and fueled by years of unemployment and corruption, has already shaken the system. The real question is whether RSP will become the disciplined political force for this new generation, or just another way for ambitious people to join the same old power networks. This is where AAP's mixed record is helpful. At its best, it showed that a protest-based party can achieve real results: better schools, health clinics, lower utility bills, and improved public services. At its worst, it showed how quickly a 'different' party can centralize power, silence critics, and focus only on protecting its leader. RSP can choose to follow the good examples and avoid the bad ones. The real test of 'new politics' is not how leaders perform on talk shows, but whether local governments are less corrupt, more responsive, and more reliable than before. That may not be exciting, but it will decide if the bell symbol means real change or just more noise. Sri Lanka and Bangladesh also remind us how easily economic problems and political frustration can turn into divisive identity politics. When people struggle with bills and job losses, some leaders blame minorities, outsiders, or supposed traitors. This pattern is all too familiar in the region. RSP's real difference from old parties will show if it avoids this shortcut. A party that starts by fighting corruption but ends up encouraging bigotry is not a real alternative, just a rebranding. Nepal has already seen enough exclusionary politics; it does not need a new version with a new look. So what would a better path look like for RSP in this busy region? It needs to keep the moral clarity it had at the start, the organizational discipline that AAP learned over time, the patience that Sri Lanka's Aragalaya never developed, and the institutional focus that Bangladesh's reformers lacked. In practice, this means three things. First, set up real internal democracy with clear rules for leadership changes, candidate selection, conflicts of interest, and finances. Second, develop strong policies so that every promise on jobs, migration, health, education, and federalism has a clear plan from slogan to budget. Third, decide ahead of time what it will never give up for a coalition, a ministry, or a government convoy. Nepali voters are not naïve. They have seen too many 'new forces' become old and familiar too quickly. What they have not seen is a party that stays true to itself after gaining power. If RSP can do that, it will avoid the fate of many movements from Delhi to Colombo to Dhaka. It could finally give Nepal something rare in the region: a political force that remembers why people protested, even after the excitement has faded. Prof C K Peela is a South Asia and Pacific regional-geopolitical and security expert.