Nepal's Election Season: Navigating the Divide Between Established Parties and Rising New Forces

The streets are bustling ahead of the upcoming elections on Falgun 21, the nation is energized, and the electoral fervor is growing on social media. This has become a matter of interest and concern for Nepalis scattered across the globe. The scenes of crowds pleading for votes, displaying grand processions, and engaging in various dramatic performances, from city alleys to remote village paths and trails, are worth watching.

New and old political parties are vying to win the electoral race to the best of their ability through their actions and capabilities. While this election is not entirely new, its significance for Nepali politics and the general public is natural as it is determined by the mandate of the 'Jana Andolan' (People's Movement).

Despite political system changes following the movement for a democratic republic, the general public has not felt much difference in their lives. The economic, physical, educational, and health status of the people remains largely the same. Calling the gradual development at a tortoise's pace 'development' in the global context has become shameful.

The public was extremely frustrated because the old top parties failed to address issues like political syndicates, party-fication in every sector, power-sharing, power-centric politics, extreme corruption, unrest, insecurity, the epidemic of unemployment, depressing youth migration, and the rampant presence of middlemen. The Jana Andolan was an explosion resulting from this. The upcoming election can be considered the starting point for addressing the essence of this movement.

In Nepal's multi-party system, the rise and fall of political parties have been observed since the past. The formation, dissolution, split, and unity of parties are continuously ongoing. History is a witness to the sacrifices, dedication, and struggles made by parties born out of various circumstances and needs.

Recently, various new political forces and independent candidates in Nepal have been challenging the established political parties and showing initiative. Whether in parliament or on the streets, new and established old parties seem to prioritize demonstrating their strength. They appear to be advancing their politics by using weapons such as gathering large crowds to capture public psychology, showing millions of followers on social media, displaying popularity through like, comment, and share data, supporting or opposing through street slogans, and creating various trolls.

Nepali politics has always been centered on the debate of change. With the rise of new parties and the continuity of old ones over time, a fundamental question has arisen: Is the new force truly a symbol of change, or just another form of hope? Are the old parties completely a failure, or is their experience necessary for democracy?

Amidst this conflict, the issue of partisan and political extremism has become relevant. On the other hand, the RPP, which carries a long political history, is vigorously raising the issue of reinstating the monarchy. Along with this, royalist groups like Durga Prasai, who have a non-political character, are also advocating for the monarchy in an extremist style and organizing rallies and processions. This seems to be creating confusion, suggesting that perhaps the monarchy is better than the republic.

Specifically, a narrative has been constructed where the 'new ones' claim 'the old ones ruined the country,' and the 'old ones' argue that 'we fought to bring this system,' so 'a jackal cannot rule wearing a tiger's skin.' The streets and social media have become dirty with the back-and-forth accusations. Unbecoming acts are being displayed in the electoral arena, where weapons of abuse, fear, and intimidation are being used more than agendas, issues, and debates.

On the surface, the working styles of both new and old parties appear similar. After all, both new and old are products of the same society. However, policy and leadership might have guided some degree of difference. The strategy of encircling the new to maintain dominance is prevalent among the old. The psychology among the new is that overcoming the old parties and winning the election, rather than focusing on policy, principles, and agenda, is the solution to every problem.

They are moving towards extremism, crossing the boundary of cordiality. The public is caught up in this.

Looking at Nepal's political history, parties like the Nepali Congress, the Communist Party of Nepal (UML), the Communist Party of Nepal, and the RPP have played an important role in institutionalizing democratic practice. Their contribution during the phases of struggle, movement, and constitution-making is noteworthy. However, as they revolved around power for a long time, they have been accused of status quoism, factionalism, and failing to meet public expectations.

For this reason, the notion that 'all old ones are bad' has been established in the minds of many citizens. Meanwhile, the entry of new forces like the Rastriya Swatantra Party, Shram Sanskriti, Ujyalo Nepal, and the CPN (Maoist) led by Biplav into the political arena has created a new wave of hope. The anti-corruption campaign, commitment to transparency, emphasis on production and self-reliance, and a critical view of traditional styles have particularly attracted the youth.

But a subtle question might arise here: Is being new sufficient? Does being new mean the party or faction's name is new? Or is it new leadership and ideology? Is being new defined by people who have never been in politics leading, or are the new faces emerging from the old parties in search of opportunities considered new?

Political leadership is defined not just by slogans, but also by complex decision-making ability, institutional understanding, and long-term vision. Lack of experience, internal coordination, and practical difficulties can pose challenges for new parties. Therefore, the notion that 'new means solution' might be misleading.

On the other hand, completely rejecting the old parties is not a realistic perspective. Experience provides stability, but experience alone is not enough. It also requires new thinking and self-reflection. In reality, the problem lies not in being old or new, but in extremist thinking, where one side considers only itself right and disregards other perspectives.

The beauty of democracy lies not just in competition, but in cooperation and coexistence. When politics leans towards extremism, dialogue weakens, and polarization increases. This affects everything from policymaking to development. Therefore, citizens must prioritize reason over emotion. Neither blind support nor blind opposition can build a healthy democratic culture.

Political leadership is defined not just by slogans, but also by complex decision-making ability, institutional understanding, and long-term vision. Lack of experience, internal coordination, and practical difficulties can pose challenges for new parties. Therefore, the notion that 'new means solution' might be misleading.

Nepal's political future will not be determined by any single party; it is the combined result of citizen consciousness, responsible leadership, and a balanced political culture. Democracy can only strengthen if both the new and the old accept their shortcomings and choose the path of coexistence. Maintaining a balance between change and experience is the greatest necessity today. The time has come to rise above the debate of new and old partisan extremism and ask critical questions.

Is our politics moving towards consensus, transparency, and public accountability? If so, the dispute between new and old will automatically become secondary.

The declining public support for old parties and the unusual crowding around the new ones have led to one side being frustratingly anxious and the other side experiencing an increasing euphoria of victory. This has added more confusion to the majority of the public. It is difficult to judge who is right and who is wrong. Although every party has its own election strategy, the psychology of the Nepali people has not yet abandoned the old habit of forming opinions based on the external atmosphere. Both sides understand this.

Therefore, every party wants to show the general public that their lead and chance of victory are strong by showing the largest possible crowd. Although in a 'crowdocracy,' emotional impulse, slogans, and quantitative displays tend to have more influence than logic, facts, and policy debates. While individuals are physically present in the crowd, a social psychology that dulls reason comes into play.

Nepal's political landscape has reached an interesting turning point recently. In Nepal's modern political history, the contributions made by parties like the Nepali Congress, the Communist Party of Nepal (UML), the Communist Party of Nepal, and the RPP in the stages from the democratic movement to constitution-making cannot be denied. But with time, public expectations have also changed. People are seeking not just political stability, roads, and bridges, but also good governance, employment, economic prosperity, and transparency.

When the feeling that these expectations are not being met arises, dissatisfaction gradually transforms into disgust. The main reason for growing dissatisfaction with old parties is unfulfilled pledges and assurances. When commitments made during elections fail to materialize in practice, the mismatch between words and deeds adds fuel to the movement.

Another reason is that when political debate seems centered around individuals due to nepotism, favoritism, and cronyism, rather than policy, citizens may feel that politics has become a field of power struggle rather than a means to improve their lives. Furthermore, when it is felt that domestic development is slower than expected while the world is changing rapidly, the basis for dissatisfaction becomes stronger.

Against this backdrop, the rise of new parties like the Rastriya Swatantra Party, Shram Sanskriti Party, Ujyalo Nepal, as well as the CPN (Maoist) led by Biplav competing in this election, has shown a spark of hope for many. New faces, different styles, and an anti-corruption message have generated enthusiasm among the youth. New forces have succeeded in signaling that politics will no longer run in the old mold.

The desire for change is a human tendency. When the old structure fails to deliver expected results, society seeks a new path. Simple, clear, and optimistic messages have a quick impact at such times.

But an important question arises here: Is being new a guarantee of success? Politics does not run on enthusiasm alone; it also requires experience, institutional capacity, and the skill to make decisions in complex situations. Therefore, while attraction towards new forces is natural, their real test will depend on their ability to govern and deliver results.

In this context, it is not possible to draw a simple conclusion about who is right and who is wrong by comparing the old and the new. Old parties have experience and structure. New parties have energy and an agenda for change. Both aspects may be necessary for democracy. In reality, experience provides stability, while novelty provides momentum.

The election campaigns of the new parties have sent tremors through the old and established parties. They are gripped by the fear of an existential crisis. But being new is not proof of success. Politics begins with enthusiasm and drive, but sustaining it requires experience, institutional capacity, and policy clarity. Looking at Nepal's current political psychology, it seems citizens are not changing parties; they are searching for trust.

The debate on populism has been widespread globally in recent times. According to critics, populist tendencies carry the risk of placing emotion above facts. When politics becomes excessively personality-centric, institutional balance weakens. Narratives that divide society into 'us' and 'them' have the potential to increase polarization.

In Nepal too, a populist style has been seen increasing in recent years. This cannot be considered merely a political event; it is linked to social psychology. When citizens feel that rapid change is not possible through traditional processes, they are attracted to bold and different messages.

The superficial scenario of disgust towards old parties and attraction towards the new may not be the reality. It would be more beneficial for both sides to abandon the illusion of extremism and identify a moderate ideological path and destination. The nation's interest must be placed above individuals and parties.