A chance for Nepal's political renewal

This election is unfolding at a critical juncture in Nepal’s democratic journey, shaped by a past of adversity but also by a growing sense of future possibility. 

Citizens are not skeptical of democracy itself, but more demanding about what democracy should deliver. Conversations across social and professional spaces reflect frustration grounded in lived experience rather than indifference. 

Many continue to participate in elections while quietly questioning whether their participation leads to better decisions, better services, or better leadership, holding on to the belief that politics can still do better.

This election matters because time matters. Nepal stands at a moment when the next generation is ready to lead, innovate, and take responsibility, but political space has not kept pace with professional capability. The urgency today is not abstract or future oriented. It is immediate, and it is generational.

Nepal’s democracy has reached a stage where competitive elections alone are no longer enough — it is mature enough now to be accountable for what it delivers. After years of constitutional change and political transition, the more demanding test is how power is exercised after the votes are counted. 

People rightfully have qualms about established political parties, but it is appropriate to acknowledge that they have shaped the republic. They led historic struggles, dismantled absolute monarchy, and anchored federalism in constitutional practice. These contributions form the foundation of today’s political system and deserve recognition.

At the same time, a political culture built primarily around legacy and control is struggling to meet contemporary expectations. Leadership structures remain concentrated, internal decision-making is opaque, and loyalty outweighs competence. In a society that is younger, better informed, and more demanding, this approach is stagnant, even anachronistic.

The most visible consequence of this culture is declining trust in governance outcomes. This should trouble all of us. When leadership renewal is resisted, when accountability mechanisms are weak, and when decisions are negotiated within closed circles, even well-intentioned policies lose public confidence. Performance becomes secondary to continuity, and citizens are left feeling unheard.

A governance-centred political approach treats public office as responsibility rather than reward. It emphasises systems over personalities and results over narratives. Openness, therefore, is not a concession to critics but a requirement for trust. Inclusivity of a wide array of voices is a must.

Women’s participation exposes the difference between formal inclusion and substantive influence. While legal frameworks promote representation, real power often remains concentrated elsewhere. Women are visible during elections but underrepresented where policies are shaped, budgets decided, and negotiations conducted.

Moving from presence to power is essential for democratic credibility. When women participate meaningfully in decision-making, governance improves through broader perspectives, stronger oversight, and more grounded policy choices. Inclusion is not symbolic generosity but institutional strength.

Understanding how voting translates into power is central to responsible citizenship. Nepal’s mixed electoral system assigns voters two distinct choices, one focused on individual representation and the other on strengthening political cultures through party selection. Each choice carries a different but equally important responsibility.

When voters recognise this distinction, elections become a tool for shaping standards rather than repeating habits. Voting then becomes a way to reward integrity, competence, and openness rather than merely affirming familiarity.

Democracy matures when voters evaluate both parties and individuals against clear benchmarks. Ideology and history matter, but they cannot replace accountability, transparency, and performance. Symbols may mobilise support, but standards sustain institutions.

Nepal’s political future depends on the willingness to correct course without discarding experience. Established parties possess networks, organisational frameworks, and institutional memory, which should not be abandoned simply because we are at a crossroads. However, without reform in how decisions are made and power is shared, these strengths risk becoming constraints.

A governance-centered politics begins with practical questions that directly affect citizens’ lives. How accountable is the system to people’s needs and aspirations? How efficiently are services delivered? How transparent are public decisions? How are conflicts of interest managed? How can performance be monitored between elections?

Elections should therefore mark the start of accountability rather than its end. Democratic systems flourish when leaders expect continuous scrutiny and citizens remain engaged with a healthy dose of skepticism.

The real divide between old and new politics lies in how authority is structured and justified. Old politics personalised power and resisted internal reform, limiting transparency and accountability. A newer political approach seeks to institutionalise decision-making, distribute leadership, and make governance visible and measurable.

This election represents a choice to pursue politics as a daily democratic practice rather than a periodic contest. It is about enabling enterprise without unnecessary bureaucracy, allowing individuals and businesses to create value, and preparing the next generation of professionals to lead with competence and integrity. 

Nepal’s talent, including those abroad, is ready to contribute if the environment allows it. Ultimately, government should ask how it can create an environment that unleashes the creativity of its citizens. Government should not be measured by how robust it is, but by how efficient it is.

Nepal has talent, but it suffers from a lack of opportunity structures that allow talent to be recognised, trusted, to lead and deliver. The priority is to open space for younger professionals to demonstrate what they can contribute, not years from now, but now, when the country urgently needs their skills, skills, and ideas. 

Too often, capable individuals are asked to wait or to adapt themselves to rigid hierarchies before they are allowed to contribute meaningfully. Nepal’s global talent pool is one of its most underutilised assets. Across the world, Nepalis are competing and succeeding in technology, finance, engineering, and creative industries. Many are willing to return, or at least remain economically engaged with Nepal, if the right environment exists. 

With supportive policies, digital infrastructure, and regulatory clarity, Nepal can build industries that compete on quality and cost with much larger economies. Government should not position itself as the primary creator of jobs. Sustainable employment is generated by enterprises, entrepreneurs, and innovators, not by expanding the state’s payroll. 

The responsibility of government is to remove barriers, invest in enabling infrastructure, and ensure fair rules so that individuals and businesses can create value. When government attempts to replace markets rather than support them, inefficiency grows and opportunity shrinks — and corruption finds space to flourish.

Politics should expand possibilities rather than managing scarcity. Whether through parties, institutions, or civic engagement, the work of improving politics lies in strengthening standards that endure beyond any single election or cycle. 

This is the kind of contribution I seek to make, alongside others who believe Nepal can govern itself better.

Radhesh Pant is a former banker and now with the Gatisheel Nepal Party.