Nepal has long experienced political instability. The upcoming special election, following recent youth protests and unrest, marks another important moment in shaping the country's future. It is a natural phenomenon that people, even in developed countries, feel dissatisfaction with their government. However, in countries such as Nepal, where people face challenges including a weak economy, cultural transition, political instability, and geographic constraints, public dissatisfaction tends to run much deeper.
Nepali citizens have been caught in a persistent political dilemma, driven by frustration with leaders from various political parties. This frustration also increases among the new young leaders across party lines. The frequent emergence of new political parties during elections and their disappearance within a few years reflects political instability. The upcoming election once again brings new parties and leaders to the forefront. The key questions remain: What will be the consequences of this new emergence and fresh mandate? Will this new political phenomenon truly bring prosperity to the Nepali people?
There is a strong possibility that neo-populists could win significant seats in the coming election. The neo-populists do not mean only new political parties; rather, I refer to leaders who rely heavily on populist rhetoric from all political camps. From my understanding, Nepali society has been increasingly drawn to the idea of rapid, overnight change. They also often overlook the interdependence of states in today's globalization. Many neo-populist leaders have benefited from self-centered and emotional public sentiments in their pursuit of power. This trend could pose risks to Nepal's long-term prosperity and development.
History has shown that populist movements often rise quickly and decline just as fast. The Nepal Communist Party (Maoist) came to power on a platform of radical ideas and led a violent insurgency in Nepal. It also took thousands of human lives. However, it ultimately failed to deliver lasting prosperity or meaningful change for the Nepali people.
I viewed Balen Shah as a neo-populist figure, and he has gained significant public attention from youth and women. I am also concerned about whether a clear ideology, a strong grassroots base, or a long-term vision for the country supports his political rise. Without these foundations, his political movements may struggle to survive. More importantly, the country may once again become subject to political experimentation. On the other hand, traditional political parties have largely failed to adapt to this changing political environment. The Nepali Congress is one of the oldest political parties and appears to be attempting renewal through leadership changes. After Gagan Thapa took a leadership role, he has generated some hope for reform in Nepali politics. However, his path forward will remain challenging, especially with the rise of neo-populist leaders and political parties.
The upcoming election could potentially bring populist leaders to power, but it is uncertain whether they can govern as the Nepali people expect. Electing populist leaders who take control of national politics and centralize power in their own hands could weaken existing institutions. As a result, democratic values and good governance in Nepal may decline. Examining similar cases in other countries indicates that populist leadership can often foster polarization, frustration, and institutional tensions. It undermines the role of academia, the middle class, and civil society. Modern age populist leaders, such as Donald Trump, are an example of that, who completely ignore the value of academia and civil society. My assessment of Shah's mayoral tenure in Kathmandu indicates a highly personalized leadership style. He sidelines institutional processes and undermines collaborative governance.
A second, and perhaps more realistic, scenario is that the Nepali Congress secures a mandate but fails to win a full majority. This would force it into coalition politics, with no prospect of stability. As many scholars have argued for major policy reform in Nepal to address economic and institutional challenges, Mr. Thapa may not be able to address them through a coalition government. Recognizing these challenges among a few leaders does not resolve the issues without political will and a long-term vision. Additionally, policy reform is one area in which Nepali people have long been disengaged. It has created a gap between political rhetoric and practical governance. This can be a useful test for leaders such as Thapa, who may have to balance reform ambitions with political survival. The Communists and Monarchists may lose momentum in this election due to their failure to implement reforms and inadequate responses to youth protests. They still survive in some form and create disruptions. Their continued presence will likely fuel further polarization and political conflict in the post-election period.
This election may not deliver prosperity to the Nepali people because of their high expectations. The election also brings ideologically weak neo-populist power and creates structural policy problems. There is also a possibility that populist leaders may attempt to undermine existing institutions, including the judiciary. Rabi Lamichhane, who has faced allegations of financial and civil misconduct since he arrived in Nepali politics. He also has publicly criticized the judicial proceedings against him. If political leaders seek to erode the independence of the courts and other institutions, the system of government can become unstable. It can also become more divided and more vulnerable to corruption.
Hawkins and Mitchell published a research article in Cambridge University Press, stating that populism may present itself as a corrective to democratic failures. Extensive cross-regional evidence shows that populist leaders consistently weaken democratic contestation, civil liberties, media freedom, and horizontal accountability. Their findings suggest that the risks are not limited to a particular ideology or region. They argued that when populist leaders concentrate power in their own hands and attack institutions, this can gradually erode democratic values. Their study suggests that, although people in Nepal have legitimate reasons to be frustrated, another wave of populist politics may damage institutions rather than improve democracy.
The upcoming election is not a sole remedy for the current problems and youth dissatisfaction. Instead, Nepal's future depends on the strength of its institutions, political maturity, leadership, and the wisdom of its citizens. The fact that widespread dissatisfaction among Nepali youth is contributing to the rise of new populist leaders. However, these leaders rely heavily on emotional blackmail toward their supporters rather than on clear ideas and vision. The traditional political parties also failed to reform themselves and to earn greater trust among the Nepali people. Whatever political ideology comes into power, the struggle remains the same until Nepali people clearly understand the problem and show a willingness to work together. Lacking institutional and policy reform and responsible leadership, this election is unlikely to deliver long-overdue prosperity to the Nepali people.
The author is a PhD student in Public and International Affairs at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.