Pokhara, 16 February | The ongoing elections in Madhesh Pradesh are not merely a contest between candidates and parties but a profound clash between social structure, caste equations, political culture, and the character of power. With a total of 3.517 million voters spread across eight districts and 32 federal constituencies, 1,054 candidates are in the fray. Each constituency has between one and two hundred thousand voters, making the electoral landscape both vast and complex. The caste‑based demographic structure reveals that in most constituencies, the Yadav community appears as the largest voting bloc. They are followed by significant presence of indigenous tribes, Dalits, Muslims, and Tharus. In some areas, Dalits are the first, in others the second, and in most the third largest group. Yet despite their substantial population, Dalits have historically been used as “scapegoats” in every election rather than being decisive actors—a reality that underscores a deep‑seated structural issue.
The root cause lies not in the weakness of any community but in the structural character of the broker‑capitalist democratic system. Within this system, the votes of the exploited and oppressed classes are deemed necessary, but their leadership, policy‑making, and decision‑making roles are not considered essential. By constructing a narrative of “mixed settlement,” the practice of keeping the majority oppressed communities away from leadership has gradually confined state power to a limited ruling class and caste. Recently, the influence of Kathmandu Mayor Balen Shah and the wave of the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RASWPA) have emerged as an electoral tide, visible mainly in urban areas, tea‑stalls, and social media. However, due to organisational weaknesses, this wave has not been able to exert equal influence in rural areas and traditional power networks. Thus, while direct elections may see stiff competition, the results are likely to be relatively weak for these new forces. Instead, their impact is expected to be more pronounced in the proportional representation votes.
Winning an election does not depend on a single factor. Caste equations, organisational strength, economic resources, the candidate’s personal influence, and the prevailing wave—all these elements combine to produce the electoral outcome. In practice, all means of persuasion—conciliation, money, coercion, division, and influence—are being employed. Moreover, constituency delimitation favourable to the ruling class, the large number of independent candidates, and the resentment within the oppressed communities further complicate the result. Especially in villages, voters are organised through social, caste, and local leadership. As the election approaches, many voters tend to make their final decision after consulting their own community or local leaders. These leaders, who stand by the people in times of sorrow and joy, resolve disputes, and coordinate with the administration, have earned deep emotional and practical loyalty from the populace.
This situation is not a weakness of the people. Rather, it is the outcome of the structural culture developed over decades by the state and political parties. The wrong practice of buying votes through caste, money, liquor, and gifts is proving increasingly damaging even for the parties themselves. Ironically, the resources used for such purposes are mostly collected from the state and the people themselves. Today the situation has reached a point where people take all the facilities but cast their vote only for the candidate they like. The entire responsibility for this lies with the distorted political culture. The political consciousness and behaviour of citizens evolve according to the political environment created by the state, parties, and leadership.
Overall, while the Yadav community is the largest population group in Madhesh, Dalits, Muslims, Tharus and other communities also have a notable presence. Yet despite being a majority population, power, resources, and decision‑making processes at the federal, provincial, and local levels remain largely confined to the control of the traditional ruling class. Although some doors have opened after the advent of democracy, institutionalised oppression, exploitation, and suppression have not ended. A minority but powerful ruling class appears to be systematically using the poverty, deprivation, and insecurity imposed on the majority communities to serve its own interests. Instead of addressing burning issues such as unemployment, foreign migration, and the decline of agriculture and industry, parties are prioritising ruling castes, capitalists, and media‑friendly faces in ticket distribution, pushing the majority further into crisis.
Nevertheless, from a long‑term perspective, the expansion of consciousness, political awakening, the rise of alternative forces, and the organisational unity of the oppressed communities hold the possibility that such distorted practices will gradually weaken. The hope that democracy will strengthen and move towards genuine representation is born from this very possibility. An electoral wave can propel a new party to claim about fifty percent of the votes. But the remaining fifty percent becomes decisive. At this stage, the candidate’s character, the party’s long‑term organisational presence, its role in people’s daily lives, caste equations, constituency delimitation, economic capacity, and technology‑friendly strategies become determining factors.
Today, mobile phones and social networks have brought information even to illiterate citizens. Especially in urban areas where direct contact is weakening, the use of technology has become even more crucial. If coordination among all these aspects fails, one may come close to victory yet still face defeat. Old parties have strong organisations in every community, making them still formidable in direct contests. New parties and sudden waves lack such organisational depth. Hence, even voters desiring change cannot easily abandon old loyalties. Consequently, the situation where proportional votes increase but expected influence on power and decision‑making does not materialise may repeat itself. History has shown that the ultimate responsibility of institutionalising every change‑oriented movement has been taken up by Madhesh itself. This time too, Madhesh stands in the role of institutionalising the “Gen‑Z” movement, with Jhapa and Sarlahi currently at its centre. That the world’s attention is focused here around Falgun 21 is no coincidence. This is the present electoral reality and the main challenge.
