Pokhara, 26 December| The current political climate in Nepal has entered a phase of intense ‘Realpolitik’ as emerging political forces strategize to challenge the long-standing dominance of traditional parties. These new powers are increasingly adopting an ‘alliance-building’ strategy, aiming to come under a single umbrella by any means necessary to defeat the tripartite syndicate of the Nepali Congress, CPN-UML, and CPN-Maoist Center in the upcoming elections. While this movement is fueled by widespread public disillusionment with the corruption and nepotism prevalent in established parties, it faces a critical scrutiny regarding its ideological foundation. Experts warn that while these forces have successfully tapped into public anger, they currently lack a unified vision or a cohesive socio-political framework required to govern a complex federal democracy.
Traditional parties, despite their current leadership crisis, possess deep-rooted organizational structures and ideological philosophies such as socialism or people’s democracy, which provide them with long-term sustainability. In contrast, the emerging trend among new forces appears to be centered around ‘Strongman Politics,’ where the movement revolves around charismatic figures like Balen Shah, Rabi Lamichhane, or Kulman Ghising. Analysts argue that following a masculine, individual-centric figure rather than an institutionalized ideology may lead to populist extremism and governance failure. Winning an election is merely one aspect of politics; however, running a government is a science that requires precise policy formulation, mission-oriented planning, and a clear roadmap, all of which seem to be secondary to the current focus on electoral mathematics and power-sharing.
The demand for a theoretical basis for collaboration is already rising among Gen Z leaders, who are pushing for more than just a tactical alliance. Without a shared political outlook, any government formed by these disparate groups could fall into a cycle of instability, switching partners frequently and undermining the very essence of multi-party democracy. For these new forces to present a genuine alternative, they must transition from a profit-making mindset often found in corporate structures to a ‘greater good’ mindset focused on public service. The ultimate challenge for these new actors lies in demonstrating maturity in leadership and organization while binding themselves to a clear ideological thread that ensures stability and policy consistency. Failure to do so might provide a momentary lesson to old parties but could leave the nation burdened with prolonged administrative chaos.
