<figure><img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/2022111015114/636d058b9c7e80680e0a5f12jpeg.jpg" alt="" width="1500" height="1000"/><figcaption>Then Health Minister Hridayesh Tripathi receiving the first batch of 348,000 doses of Covishield AstraZeneca vaccines from the UN Resident Coordinator in Nepal Sara Beysolow Nyanti in March. The remaining 1.92 million doses promised by COVAX never arrived. Photo: UN</figcaption></figure>As a previously unknown mystery disease caused by the novel coronavirus struck Planet Earth in the winter of 2019-20, public health officials and the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended universal mask wearing, physical distancing, lockdowns and travel restrictions, while awaiting the arrival of preventive vaccines and effective therapies.On two sides of the Atlantic, two contrasting approaches emerged to tackle what came to be known as the Covid-19 pandemic.On the one hand, there was the erratic and eccentric Donald Trump (seconded by his Brazilian buddy Jair Bolsonaro) who denied the seriousness of the pandemic or peddled his “genius” discovery of miscellaneous medications and magical cures like injecting disinfectants into human body or irradiating patients’ bodies with UV light.Blaming China and WHO was Trump’s fallback position to hide his own policy failures. But he also invested billions of dollars to bankroll several American pharmaceutical companies to speed up the production of Covid vaccines through his Operation Warp Speed.Consistent with his ‘America First’ priority, the vaccines were meant primarily for Americans, of course, though any leftovers could be sold or given away to friendly countries abroad depending on the MAGA Leader’s mood and magnanimity.On the other side of the Atlantic, at the urging of the WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom, many European leaders took a seemingly more enlightened global approach. Recognising that “no one is safe until everyone is safe”, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and their fellow Nordic counterparts declared that they would eschew “vaccine nationalism” and embrace the concept of a Covid vaccine as a ‘global public good’ to be made available equitably to all countries. The United Nations, the developing world, civil society organisations and celebrities welcomed this enlightened approach.Encouraged by this idealistic vision, WHO launched a clumsily worded but ambitious ‘Access to Covid-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator’ that would speed up the development, production, and equitable access to Covid-19 tests, treatment, and vaccines. The ACT Accelerator brought together a grand alliance of governments, scientists, businesses, civil society, and philanthropists, including the Gates Foundation, GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance, the Global Fund, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), the World Bank, Unicef.It was a who’s who of the global health partnership. The most important ‘pillar’ of the ACT Accelerator was the ‘COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access’, abbreviated as <a href="https://www.who.int/initiatives/act-accelerator/covax" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">COVAX</a>.COVAX is hosted and administered by GAVI, and its main vaccine procurement and delivery partner is Unicef. A high-level COVAX Coordinating Mechanism with representation of a cross-section of its partners and multiple technical groups is responsible for ensuring equitable allocation and access to Covid-19 vaccines worldwide.Participating in COVAX are two groups of countries: the fully self-financing high-income countries (HICs), and nearly 100 low and middle-income countries (LMICs) that generally rely on donor funding to receive some vaccines, but can also purchase some more with their own resources.A mechanism called the Advance Market Commitment (AMC) through which GAVI guarantees the purchase of a large quantity of vaccines to incentivise manufacturers to produce doses and sell them at an affordable price. Initially, the donors were expected to capitalise on the COVAX facility with a contribution of $9 billion to purchase and distribute 2 billion doses of vaccines to meet the needs of some 20% of high-risk groups in participating countries, including frontline health workers and senior citizens.Launched with much fanfare in April 2020, long before there were any viable vaccines, COVAX was hailed as a futuristic model of enlightened international cooperation to ensure that vaccine development and delivery would progress at ‘a speed, scale, and access never before seen in human history’.<img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/2022111015114/636d058e9c7e80680e0a5f13jpeg.jpg" alt="" width="1226" height="678">Realpolitik of vaccine nationalismWhile most poorer countries <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/here-now/when-will-nepals-covid-vaccine-turn-come/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">patiently waited for COVAX to be fully-functional</a>, most richer countries, particularly the G-7 and EU members, decided to jump the queue and cut bilateral deals for their own citizens. Not to be left behind in the competition for public relations and profits, China, India and Russia, the three major vaccine producers outside Western Europe and the US, engaged in carefully orchestrated ‘<a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/jabs-and-jab-nots/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">vaccine diplomacy</a>’ to bolster their image of solidarity with LMICs.COVAX remained under-funded and unable to compete with the HICs that quickly reserved huge quantities of vaccines directly from the manufacturers, often exceeding their actual requirements. By August 2020, the Trump administration had signed seven bilateral deals with six companies for more than 800 million doses, enough to vaccinate 140% of its population.The Biden administration substantially increased this. The EU was not far behind in reserving half a billion doses secured through two deals. The UK signed five bilateral deals for 270 million doses, equivalent to 225% of its population. Canada was at the head of the class reserving four times more vaccines than the total requirement for its population.These bilateral deals severely undercut COVAX’s ambition of becoming the global coordinator of vaccine procurement, allocation and distribution. By the time it managed to secure the $8.3 billion it needed to procure and deliver the promised vaccines to 92 poorer countries in June 2021, manufacturers had no more vaccines to sell, as practically all their production was contractually committed to the HICs.COVAX was caught in a Catch-22. Whereas initially it did not have enough money to buy the vaccines, now it has the money but there are no vaccines in the market. Besides HICs hoarding a huge cache of excess vaccines, two other problems are responsible for the global vaccine shortage.The huge <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/first-signs-of-the-second-wave/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">second wave</a> of Covid infection in India in the Spring of 2021 led it to ban the export of the AstraZeneca Covishield vaccine manufactured by the Serum Institute of India (SII). This was a huge shock and disappointment for both COVAX and most lower-income countries like Nepal. They were counting on SII, the world’s largest vaccine producer, to be their main supplier.<a style="font-size: 15px; letter-spacing: 0.01em;" href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/here-now/south-asias-vaccine-geopolitics/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">South Asia's vaccine geopolitics</a>, Christopher TanBut an even bigger and more systemic problem is the unwillingness of a handful of Big Pharma to give up their exclusive patent rights to produce life-saving vaccines and medications. Although the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) provides for waiving patent rights in the case of life-saving medicines and vaccines, in public health emergencies like global pandemics, most HICs have refused to grant such waivers.President Biden did express a willingness to consider waiving the intellectual property rights for Covid  vaccines. But the same European leaders who loudly proclaimed Covid vaccines as ‘global public goods’, have stubbornly and hypocritically resisted waiving the IP rights of their pharmaceutical companies.The hypocrisy is compounded because billions of dollars, euros and pounds of public funds were given to private Big Pharma companies to accelerate research and development of new vaccines for which they now claim exclusive patent rights to maximise profits for their private shareholders.The G-7 charade There were high hopes that the G-7 Summit of the world’s richest democratic countries in Cornwall in June 2021 would lead to a breakthrough in Covid response, revive COVAX and accelerate delivery of vaccines to developing countries. While the absence of an arrogant and unpredictable Trump created an atmosphere of congenial camaraderie at the G-7, its outcome was long in lofty rhetoric but woefully short in concrete and urgent action to tackle the global pandemic.The IMF had estimated that an investment of $55 billion now would not only save the lives and protect the health of millions, but would help revive the world economy and yield a return of $9 trillion by 2025. Sadly, the G-7 accounting for 60% of the world’s economy did not pledge even 6% of the investment recommended by the IMF.The G-7 commitment to donate less than one billion doses of the surplus vaccine they have hoarded, and that too over an extended period stretching well into mid-2022, was a huge disappointment in the face of a dramatic surge of newer and deadlier Covid variants <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/we-knew-the-tsunami-was-approaching/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">ravaging countries like Nepal</a>, much of Southeast Asia and the African continent.COVAX estimates that it needs 2 billion doses in 2021 to reach the most vulnerable 20% of people in the developing world, and 11 billion doses to reach herd immunity by 2022. Alas, if current trends continue, if TRIPS patent waiver is not granted and technology transfer not facilitated to vastly increase and diversify vaccine production in many more countries, it might take decades before people in LMICs can expect to reach herd immunity.<img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/2022111015114/636d05919c7e80680e0a5f14jpeg.jpg" alt="" width="1220" height="664">The People's Vaccine Alliance estimates that, at the current rate, low-income countries could take 57 years to fully vaccinate their populations, whereas G-7 countries are likely to reach that milestone in the next 6 months.Contrary to the mantra of ‘vaccine equity’ chanted ad nauseum at the UN, at WHO, and at COVAX, the action and inaction of the G-7 actually promote vaccine nationalism. As the Secretary-General of the UN and Director-General of WHO have pointed out, vaccine nationalism in rich countries (and more recently in India) are perpetuating a two-tier world. Of the 2.1 billion Covid-19 vaccine doses administered worldwide so far, only 4% were provided to poorer countries by COVAX.As UN Secretary-General António Guterres has noted poignantly, “Today, ten countries have administered 75% of all COVID-19 vaccines, but, in poor countries, health workers and people with underlying conditions cannot access them. This is not only manifestly unjust, it is also self-defeating.”COVAX and an unequal world COVAX has been criticised harshly for making tall promises but failing to deliver. As a bold and nascent initiative, it is going through teething problems, and has made some mistakes and miscalculations. GAVI that administers COVAX, made some early compromises on its egalitarian founding principles by agreeing to certain double standards applied to the HICs vs LMICs.For example, it allowed donor countries like the UK and Canada to pick and choose which vaccines they preferred to fund or purchase for themselves through COVAX rather than requiring their funding to be co-mingled as part of COVAX’s funding pool for all countries and products.There was some consternation when the UK and Canada managed to purchase through COVAX fairly large quantities of their chosen vaccines, despite the fact that they had already procured plenty of vaccines through direct bilateral contracts with several vaccine manufacturers, even as COVAX was struggling to deliver minimal quantities of vaccines for LMICs.Canada managed to procure through COVAX 1.6 million doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine while Nepal (a country of similar population size) only received 348,000 doses. An added irony is that some of those AZ vaccines in Canada remain unused and are on the verge of expiry, whereas 1.4 million senior citizens in Nepal are desperately waiting for their second jab of the AZ vaccine.Some of these examples go to show that notwithstanding the lofty principles underlying the enlightened concept of COVAX, we still live in a world where, as the old saying goes, ‘one who pays the piper calls the tune’. On a larger scale, a similar situation prevails at the United Nations, where the principle of ‘sovereign equality of all member states’ is rendered meaningless by five veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council, and a handful of other influential donors.Despite such shortcomings, the UN, COVAX and other initiatives are important building blocks towards a fairer world of greater human solidarity. Imperfect as they are, humanity is better off with such organisations striving to harness the power of partnership and solidarity than a dog-eat-dog world driven solely by narrow national or other parochial interests.Some of the weaknesses and hypocrisy seen in the early functioning of COVAX are not the result of its model being wrong, but because some of its key sponsors not playing by agreed rules.<img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/2022111015114/636d05949c7e80680e0a5f15jpeg.jpg" alt="" width="1442" height="588">In a world of sovereign nation-states, leaders have a legitimate responsibility to protect their own populations first. Hence vaccine nationalism is understandable and should have been built into the design of initiatives like COVAX from the start -- although pursuing vaccine equity must be its ultimate objective.Without putting all our eggs in the COVAX basket, and while exploring all other options to meet our urgent vaccine needs, it is in the interest of countries like Nepal to help build a more robust COVAX to help the world better cope with future pandemics.<a href="http://www.kulgautam.org/" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.kulgautam.org/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1625197419711000&amp;usg=AFQjCNFM7lv53rOVMJQdg4WABZK4M09vvw">Kul Chandra Gautam</a>, a Nepali diplomat, is a former Assistant Secretary-General of the UN and Deputy Executive Director of Unicef. He is also the author of Global Citizen from Gulmi: My Journey from the Hills of Nepal to the Halls of the United Nations. He was also a board member of GAVI.

original

674x448

610x380

500x500

400x266

400x240

400x203

301x200

1250x600

1084x550

Hope, hyperbole and hypocrisy of COVAX

<figure><img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221129151140/638619f99c7e80680e0cccd3jpeg.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="533"/><figcaption>Illustration: DIWAKAR CHETTRI</figcaption></figure>US President Donald Trump has pulled his country out of the World Health Organisation (WHO) citing its pro-China bias in dealing with COVID-19. (At least Trump says he has left the WHO, as with many of the president’s statements — remember the wall with Mexico? — reality can play out differently.)But even if this time Trump has accurately predicted what he will do, the global order did not just die. The pandemic might be stretching it like never before but many examples show that it is intact.For every confrontation that makes headlines, there are acts of cooperation that go unnoticed: the US prevents 3M from exporting masks, Washington and Ottawa agree to extend an agreement to keep their border closed till 21 June, when Trump <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/pompeo-accuses-who-of-failing-in-basic-duty/" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/pompeo-accuses-who-of-failing-in-basic-duty/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1591492305679000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGnM-BCJh0YtceNmtprsPQrb_GjyA">froze funds to the WHO</a> before announcing the US’ withdrawal, Finland boosted its contribution.Of course, you can argue that such acts of cooperation are motivated by self-interest, but what is not in global relations? Governments create multinational organisations and sign treaties in the expectation that together they will be stronger – better able to prevent annihilation via wars, more effective at preventing the hole in the ozone layer from growing — and that individual nations and citizens will benefit.Development assistance is pledged in the hope that its recipients one day will become players in the global, wealth-generating trading system, which, at least in theory, benefits all participants. (More cynically, donor countries ‘tie’ aid to receiving countries doing business with their own manufacturers).Trump has also announced that the US will withdraw from the Open Skies treaty, which permits governments to conduct unarmed surveillance flights over 35 states, including Russia. Are you seeing a theme here? A huge chunk of the ‘COVID has killed cooperation’ thinking is based on events originating in Washington, and while the US president is undoubtedly influencing fellow leaders from Orban to Bolsanaro, as with many Trump-related issues, bombast overpowers behaviour.Here in Nepal, the US was one of the first governments to provide aid to Kathmandu, in March, to fight the outbreak. Many others have followed: China, <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/uk-support-to-help-strengthen-nepals-response-to-covid-19/" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/uk-support-to-help-strengthen-nepals-response-to-covid-19/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1591492305679000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGgvaCgocoaHlFxd1vxJZNNQUWkeQ">Britain</a>, Germany, India, Qatar, <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/10000-covid-19-test-kits-to-nepal-from-singapore/" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/10000-covid-19-test-kits-to-nepal-from-singapore/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1591492305679000&amp;usg=AFQjCNEdpD4HEu6SqdPPUQ4x__WapVM0vQ">Singapore</a>, <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/swiss-pcrs-for-nepal-covid-19-testing/" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/swiss-pcrs-for-nepal-covid-19-testing/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1591492305679000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGWnIC4n8J6DhbVOCs7aq_2AZbb7g">Switzerland</a>, UAE, even Burma. Yes, Nepal’s powerful neighbours India and China are both continually vying for influence here, and Switzerland and Germany are long-time donors, but if these governments were motivated solely by self-interest would they not be retreating into their own crisis-ridden states rather than assisting Nepal, where only 11 people have died to date of the coronavirus?France and Germany have proposed a €500 billion European Union rescue fund that would benefit mainly southern EU states like Spain, Greece and Italy, which have been devastated by the virus. Those governments would not have to repay the money. Of course the move, which still needs to be agreed by all members, is also motivated by self-interest — any failing nation will drag down all EU members — but if agreed the deal would mark a major response that belies the prevailing ‘charity begins at home’ narrative popular in these times.The international response to the pandemic includes $44 million deposited by governments into the United Nations COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund, $217 million into the WHO Solidarity Fund, and €7.4 billion pledged for vaccine research. Even USAID has announced $99 million in global emergency health funding. Countries have anted up to finance a global response to the pandemic but as usual in times of crisis it's, not enough. WHO has reported it is $900 million short of the $1.7 billion it will need to respond to the virus in 2020.The WHO has become another flashpoint in US-China relations, which have soured in a trade war since Trump took office in 2017. President Xi Jinping used the recent meeting of the World Health Association, the decision-making body of the WHO, as a platform to pledge $2 billion over two years to help nations fight COVID-19, which dwarfs the roughly $500-million US contribution to the global health body.More than 100 countries are participating in <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/opinion/countries-cooperating-to-find-covid-19-cure/" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nepalitimes.com/opinion/countries-cooperating-to-find-covid-19-cure/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1591492305679000&amp;usg=AFQjCNE5Gy3XfqxCIHQpT1qL_fZJbCIp-Q">WHO’s Solidarity Trial</a> to speed up development of a vaccine, and in May 140 world leaders, including South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and former UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, signed a letter calling for all virus vaccines, treatments and tests to be patent-free, mass produced and distributed fairly.These actions seem to signify that much of the world agrees that just as the virus threat is global, the response too must be international.

Marty Logan

WHO and US

<img width="1592" height="820" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109121112/636b8bbd9c7e80680e06b2bcjpeg.jpg" alt=""/>		US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has defended President Donald Trump withholding funding to the World Health Organisation (WHO) saying the UN body had “not been responsible” in handling the COVID-19 pandemic.In a conference call from Washington DC on Thursday with five editors from Central and South Asia, Pompeo said the United States would lead the international response to the disease to address the health and economic challenges for countries including Nepal, India and the rest of the region.Asked by Nepali Times why the United States was scapegoating the WHO at a time when international cooperation was most needed to find antidotes to the disease, Pompeo replied: “We are not scapegoating the WHO, we are executing the mission to protect citizens. It has not lived up to its responsibility ... it has failed in its basic duty, and when the organisation fails we will find another mechanism.”The United States provided $400 million to the WHO last year, and is one of its biggest donors. Trump’s pause in funding is expected to last 2-3 months and will reportedly be resumed after a review of the agency’s activities.He said the United States has delivered more than $500 million to help countries all over the world through USAID and the State Department to fight the pandemic, and that does not including WHO. He did not repeat President Trump’s accusation on Tuesday that the WHO was “pro-China”, but said that Beijing had not disclosed facts and data pertaining to the outbreak and that China had to “open up and be held accountable”.On Wednesday, in an interview with Fox News, Pompeo urged China “to come clean on exactly how the virus spread”. There has been speculation that virus could have leaked out of the labs of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which is located near the wet market where the infections started. The WHO has repeatedly denied that the novel coronavirus was made in a lab, and has maintained that it is natural and jumped from bats to humans through another mammal host, likely pangolins.On Thursday, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian dismissed Pompeo’s remarks,  telling a press briefing in Beijing: “Officials of the World Health Organization have repeatedly said there's no evidence the virus was made in a lab, and many experts have also said the claim lacks scientific proof.”During his conference call on Thursday, Pompeo was also asked if he thought that the pandemic would result in the global power balance to shift from the United States to China becoming number one. He replied: “The United States, the world’s democracies and freedom-loving people will come out of this far better than authoritarian countries. It is not accurate to say that countries with central authority have been able to deal with a global pandemic like this better than democracies. America will be at the front to meet the challenge and lead it.”He added that India and the United States were coordinating their efforts in responding to the pandemic in medical equipment and drugs. But he said the crisis had not stopped the two countries in continuing to address the bigger issues like the Indo-Pacific partnership, trade and “the challenges that China poses”.The US move to stop funding to WHO for being “China-centric” has come under widespread criticism from world leaders, and critics have said President Trump is trying to deflect the blame for his lapses that allowed the pandemic to spread across the country. The United States now has nearly a third of the 2.1 million coronavirus cases worldwide, and has recorded 28,500 deaths from the disease so far.

Pompeo accuses WHO of "failing in basic duty"

Nepali Congress (NC) President Gagan Thapa's candidacy in Sarlahi-4 has thrust this Madhes constituency into rare national focus. If Thapa wins and the NC emerges as the largest party, Sarlahi-4 will send Nepal's next prime minister to Parliament. But if he does not, Nepal’s grand old party will face the next years in the opposition to fight another day. There is a troubling paradox in Sarlahi-4 where the district bordering the Indian state of Bihar has been a battleground for national politicians with fierce electoral competition, all while remaining one of the region's most underserved and underdeveloped constituencies.  <figure> <img src="https://publisher-publish.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pb-nepalitimes/swp/asv65r/media/20260305140344_069cbbc11e971a851b444866dee57f760c0cc611ed40bdf96c627e343e3c0485.png" data-media-id="editor_0" data-image-id="20260305140344_069cbbc11e971a851b444866dee57f760c0cc611ed40bdf96c627e343e3c0485" data-rendition-name="original" width="1802" height="1276" loading="lazy" alt="Sarlahi-4 voting"> <figcaption>Photo: MADHES PAHARA MEDIA</figcaption> </figure>  Ever since Mahant Thakur split from NC in 2008 to form the Tarai Madhes Loktantrik Party, the district has seen rotating political alliances and fragmented votes. Yet, despite 18 years of candidates promising change irrigation schemes remain incomplete, market access for farmers has not improved, unemployment is high.&nbsp; On election day, voters here marked their ballots with fingers stained by dye from the Holi festival the day before. The road leading to Barathawa Bazar was deserted for the most part, except for some youth riding in motorcycles. This is where the high-profile contest between Gagan Thapa and RSP nominee Amresh Singh is being staged. Among the other aspirants is 27-year-old UML candidate Amnish Yadav, the son of former MP Shiv Pujan Yadav. The Yadavs are a political family with considerable caste influence in the constituency. In 2022 Yadav’s daughter Madhumala Yadav received over 14,000 votes here, ranking third overall. Yadav was voted MP from the Maoist party, but defected to the UML this time. His other son is the chair of Sarlahi’s Ramnagar Rural Municipality. Sarhali-4 has 121,012 voters, and the Yadav is banking on the 27,000-strong Yadav vote bank. Sarlahi-4 voter Avishek Sah told us he wanted his vote to go to a young nominee and not someone who has been MP thrice already, like Amresh Singh. &nbsp;  <figure> <img src="https://publisher-publish.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pb-nepalitimes/swp/asv65r/media/20260305140344_527c5c2f9aa6a6c7e3bbdfbfe79fdafb0a0b56a62427e9ced86b924c6c563b10.jpg" data-media-id="editor_1" data-image-id="20260305140344_527c5c2f9aa6a6c7e3bbdfbfe79fdafb0a0b56a62427e9ced86b924c6c563b10" data-rendition-name="original" width="1200" height="1600" loading="lazy" alt="Sarlahi-4 voting"> <figcaption>Photo: AYUSHA CHALISE</figcaption> </figure>  To make local loyalties even more complicated, Amnish Yadav’s uncle, Harinder Yadav is an active NC member and walked side by side with Gagan Thapa during his door-to-door campaigns.&nbsp; The NC is betting on Thapa getting over 60% of the total votes. Amresh Singh’s tally could be limited to 10,000 votes — that too because of the nationwide RSP wave, and the popularity of its prime ministerial hopeful Balendra (Balen) Shah. “Amresh Singh lost his appeal when he played victim after he was denied a ticket by the NC in 2022,” Harinder Yadav says. Voters we spoke to here agreed with this assessment that Singh did not do much for the district once he got elected in the past, and being a part of the RSP seems to be his biggest asset. “The only reason I voted for Amresh Singh is because Balen is in RSP,” local voter Mahendra Gupta from Barathawa. &nbsp;“This is his last chance to return the people’s trust.”&nbsp; Gupta is aware of the institutional presence of the NC here. The party received the most votes in 2022 local elections, adding that the candidacy of someone as high-profile as Thapa is a positive sign for Sarlahi-4.&nbsp; Other voters like Ruby Gupta are rooting for both the NC and the RSP. “I will vote for Gagan and for Balen,” she says, adding that her FPTP vote will go to Thapa while her PR ballot would be for the RSP. RSP supporters are confident that their candidate will win big because even though many voters may not have openly voiced their support they still voted for the party and candidate. The Balen Wave was not limited to RSP voters, but also to UML candidate Yadav, who said in a gathering that he will be “the voters Balen” if they elect him. He touted his party’s track record in government, and largely campaigned on administrative efficiency, infrastructural expansion, and local service delivery. Amresh Singh ran on the RSP’s anti-establishment brand, promising to fight corruption, challenge traditional party politics, improve basic services such as education, health, jobs, and infrastructure, while pushing for stronger representation and development for Madhes.&nbsp;  <figure> <img src="https://publisher-publish.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pb-nepalitimes/swp/asv65r/media/20260305140344_982df01801fa7d3532ca0555ecb8a0756e3223be3d93650e08ca82a312dc2ebd.jpg" data-media-id="editor_2" data-image-id="20260305140344_982df01801fa7d3532ca0555ecb8a0756e3223be3d93650e08ca82a312dc2ebd" data-rendition-name="original" width="1600" height="1200" loading="lazy" alt="Sarlahi-4 voting"> <figcaption>Photo:AYUSHA CHALISE</figcaption> </figure>  Singh’s rivalry with his NC competitor goes beyond the ballot— he allegedly blames Thapa for being denied the NC ticket in 2022, which led him to win the election from Sarlahi-4 as an independent. &nbsp; For his part, Gagan Thapa focused on a more pragmatic development agenda that includes upgrading roads and irrigation, improving schools and hospitals, supporting farmers, and creating employment opportunities with improved governance at the centre. He also promised to build an engineering college in the constituency.&nbsp; Thapa also promoted his own anti-establishment image within the NC, repeatedly reminding voters on the campaign trail that he represents the aspirations of the youth.&nbsp; On Thursday, as voting progressed, there were violent disruptions in two centres where voting was briefly halted. But Sarlahi district police spokesperson Saroj Rai told Nepali Times that there were no major problems. Police in collaboration with the Nepal Army sent the ballot papers to the district’s counting stations, where the votes are expected to be tallied through the night and the winner announced Friday morning.

Sarlahi-4 nervously watches ballot count

&nbsp;
<div class="embed-block"><iframe src="https://election-geo-dashboard.pages.dev/" width="100%" height="700" frameborder="0"> </iframe></div>

Nepal election live results

As this report is uploaded, the latest results in Nepal’s election show that the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) is headed for an even bigger sweep than most had predicted.
The RSP was leading by large margins in 49 of 165 constituencies, &nbsp;with the UML, NC and NCP trailing far behind. Prominent political figures from the old parties like K P Oli, Minwndra Prasad Rijal, Ishwar Pokhrel, Bishnu Prasad Poudel, Bimalendra Nidhi all seem headed for defeat.
It does look like the RSP’s bell election symbol is ringing right across Nepal — from cities to the remotest districts in the mountains and plains. The party’s blue colour is sweeping the land.
The Nepali people seem to have sent a clear message that they were throughly dissatisfied with the chronic failure of the three main parties to work in the national interest to create jobs and deliver development. It was also an expression of lingering outrage over the the 8 September massacre outside Parliament. &nbsp;
It now looks almost certain that Balendra Shah will get to be Nepal’s next, and youngest, prime minister. Hopefully he will be leading a cabinet of competent and honest technocrats. It remains to seen how the power equation between Shah and the RSP’s leader, Rabi Lamichhane will play out.
Lamichhane is out of jail on bail for fraud cases which he has called political vendetta by the previous regime. Both he and Shah are charismatic and ambitious. Their working relationship will determine Nepal's political stability and whether it can avoid the political cronyism of the past.
This election was not just about casting votes. It was about standing up to principles and a value system, and respecting the hopes and aspirations of Nepal’s youth. It to push for transparent government and against impunity — including for the gunning down of young Nepalis in cold blood.
<div class="embed-block"><iframe src="https://election-geo-dashboard.pages.dev/" width="100%" height="600" frameborder="0"> </iframe>Live election results as winners of candidates are announced.</div>
CAN DO MAN
Shah got mixed reviews as mayor. He was impulsive and ad hoc, but most people inKathmandu and beyond liked his can-do attitude and unconventional style which stood in sharp contract to the legacy leaders. Over his three year mayorship he showed more maturity and planning capacity.&nbsp;
But he always ran headlong into opposition from the federal government over his urban planning and other initiatives to make Kathmandu more liveable. Coming from a civil and structural engineering background, he was involved in building low-cost housing after the 2015 earthquake.
But his public persona is more tied to his irreverent rap lyrics that stood up for the marginalised underprivileged in society, while exposing the high-handedness and apathy of the state. But this also exposed contradictions because he also used his own municipal guards to beat and chase away street vendors and squatters.
But there is no doubt that a combination of the sharp messaging in his rap videos amplified by the algorithms of social media ignited Nepal’s youth to rise up. It was more about optics and emotion than policy and strategy.
He studied Kathmandu district for five years, visiting experts in every field before announcing his independent candidacy for mayor in 2022. Many like me in his own constitunecy did not know who he was and where he came from.
He is a year younger than my architect son, and I saw in him a reflection of my own son’s commitment to serving the nation. I voted for him to be mayor despite his sometimes erratic behaviour, which could be attributed to his youth.
The best sign of his strategic planning, which unsettled septuagenarian and octogenarian politicians, is the he did not grab the first easy option of becoming prime minister in September when GenZ activists offered him the post.&nbsp;
Joining RSP was a masterstroke, as was his challenge to Oli in Jhapa to project national branding. He needed a party platform and Lamichhane needed a popular prime ministerial persona since he himself could not hold the post.
Shah has shown the capacity to take risks when he believes the value justifies the action for the country. Now, he will have to show more strategic thinking on a national scale, as well as understand the delicate geopolitics of Nepal.&nbsp;
He must rise above the kind of crude social media posts that earned him followers on X, but did nothing to erase his erratic and impulsive image.&nbsp;
Some assume that behind his trademark RayBan shades is a closet dictator, and his past remarks about Hitler are still up on social media. He has in the past shown impatience with criticism, unleashing supporters on social media to troll detractors.&nbsp;
Even so, the public seems willing to place their hope on an educated young man with integrity and a proven record for planning at the helm. By tomorrow it will be clear whether the hope Nepalis have held has been fulfilled, and the coming years will show if the RSP will lead Nepalis to a better future.
The voters seem to have shown the door even to the NC despite the fact that under Gagan Thapa, the party had turned a new leaf. A strong government under Prime Minister Balendra Shah heading a carefully selected cabinet and a strong opposition of the NC, UML and other parties for check and balance may be just what we need for a stable Nepal.&nbsp;
Nepalis have collectively always shown maturity in elections. This time they have given a resounding endorsement for integrity and for good governance.

Bells ring all over Nepal

After Thursday’s election, Nepalis are in a wait-and-watch mode. The Election Commission says counting ballot papers will be expedited this time, and the results for the First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) will start being declared within days. In 2022, it took three weeks for the final results to be tallied.&nbsp;
But winning an election is only half the challenge for the parties, forming a government under parliamentary politics is like a complicated mathematical equation.&nbsp;
In 2022, the Nepali Congress (NC) emerged as the biggest party, winning 89 seats. But the UML with 78 seats and the Maoists with 32 formed a minority government. In fact, Sher Bahadur Deuba did not become PM then despite leading the biggest party in Parliament.
This time, there is an unmistakeable Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) wave led by its prime ministerial candidate, Balendra Shah. Besides his own popularity, Shah represents change which most Nepalis are clamouring for after decades of corrupt and feckless coalitions that did not deliver.&nbsp;
The past months of campaigning has seen massive youth engagement on social media through memes, AI clips, and viral images. Digital content that appeals to emotion rather than policy debate between candidates shape electoral outcomes in Nepal and elsewhere. &nbsp;
Shah represents GenZ aspirations, and was their candidate for prime minister. It was only when he declined that Sushila Karki was nominated. None of the political parties in the recent past -- new, old, or revolutionary — have won enough seats to go it alone.&nbsp;
The most recent majority government was formed by the short-lived Communist Party of Nepal after the UML-Maoist merger in 2022. But that rare two-thirds majority collapsed after a power struggle between K P Oli and Pushpa Kamal Dahal. The only party to have won a majority was the NC in the 1991 and 1999 elections. But it is near impossible for it to repeat this success now, even with Gagan Thapa's rebranding of the party.&nbsp;
We have compiled these possible scenarios for election outcome in order of likelihood:
RSP gets a majority
RSP hits the magic 138 to form a government entirely on its own. Balendra Shah wins Jhapa-5, and becomes the new prime minister at 35, the youngest ever to hold the office in Nepal. But danger lurks: there could be a personality clash between Shah and Lamichhane who are both equally ambitious. History could repeat itself.&nbsp;
RSP wins but does not get a majority
RSP is likely to sweep the most votes, but what if it does not secure enough seats for a majority? It would need a coalition partner and Nepali Communist Party (NCP) under Pushpa Kamal Dahal could fit the bill, but only if it has the numbers. The RSP is not likely to team up with the UML or NC.
The NCP is relatively untainted by the 8 September events, and also has former UML defectors like Madhav Kumar Nepal and Bhim Rawal who could bag their rural vote banks. After all, there are no permanent foes in politics. If the royalist RPP and Tarai-based Janata Samajwadi have enough seats, those could be options for the RSP. &nbsp;
NC is second
The NC under the new leadership of Gagan Thapa could become the second biggest force and form a government with RSP in a power-sharing deal with Shah. This would be the most stable scenario since the RSP and NC have competent and idealistic young technocrats. Thapa himself embodies a strong combination of both old and new politics to navigate the system for more efficient government. But then Thapa and the RSP's Rabi Lamichhane do not get along.
NC and NCP form a majority
If the NC becomes the largest party but not by a big margin, it could join up with the NCP and Ujyalo. Teaming up with the UML would likely face backlash with the party and outside. If Gagan Thapa becomes prime minister he will face internal pressure from both Deuba loyalists. Same old story.
Minority coalition of NC, UML and NCP
RSP becomes the first party but does not get a majority, paving the way for the three legacy parties to cobble together a minority government. While this is possible in Nepal’s parliamentary system, such a scenario is likely to lead to more instability and dissatisfaction among young Nepalis demanding change, and even trigger street unrest. &nbsp;