By Our Political Analyst

If political leadership cannot accept defeat, then democracy becomes a game for individuals. Nepal's present political crisis is a crisis of leaders who have remained in power for too long, governed too frequently, and learned too little. KP Sharma Oli, Sher Bahadur Deuba, and Pushpa Kamal Dahal Prachanda have been at the center of each of Nepal's biggest political twists and turns for more than three decades now, but the nation keeps suffering from the same instability, corruption, and disillusionment. Their own retirement from active politics would be a sure way to end all anomalies in present day politics.

The Gen Z revolt of September 8-9 was not a rebellion against leaders who have exploited politics and the nation for years. The young protesters called for ending corruption, good governance and transparent government. They demanded scrapping of the provincial structures and mainly they demanded for a change in the party leadership. They yearned for accountability, transparency, and a halt to hegemony of power by the same old known faces. Yet, instead of listening, the old guard has chosen defiance. Oli’s UML has already announced it will use both the streets and the courts to restore the dissolved House, while the Nepali Congress continues to hold internal meetings to decide its next move, calling the dissolution unconstitutional. Both moves reflect desperation, not strategy.

Oli’s politics now revolves around his personal survival. His move to take on the interim government in the streets and in the law books is a manifestation of hesitation to embrace political reality. UML members concur with increasing resentment against him as a leader, but are hesitant to do so publicly. The promised provider of stability to the nation is now the embodiment of instability. Deuba is no exception. With five spins of taking the country into leadership since 2048 BS, he has Nepali Congress held hostage to indecision and personal vanity. Even today, when his party is having a general convention at Mangsir, he resists pressure for a generational change. His quiet caution is not less responsibility but an act of calculation.

Prachanda also does not seem keen to leave, although his party, the Maoist Centre, has demonstrated more enthusiasm in embracing elections. While they have survived public wrath during the Gen Z revolution, the Maoists, it appears, have understood that another fight for control will only increase the conflict. Their suggestion of a political accord on elections is perhaps not driven by conviction, but is an exhibition of uncommon pragmatism. This cannot be said of Oli or Deuba, whose canine-eat-canine rivalry continues to prevent national healing.

Nepal's democracy is presented with two choices today: either let old leaders lead it further into morass or give room to new leaders. These same leaders feared changing party constitutions, bogged down conventions, and muzzled young voices to maintain power for decades. This eroded internal democracy and made fear-defined parties into individual fiefdoms. Oli’s amendment of the UML statute to extend his leadership and Deuba’s repeated delay of party conventions are just two sides of the same coin. Both moves have weakened democratic norms and suffocated reform.

The Gen Z movement reminded the nation that leadership is not about clinging to chairs but about earning trust. The uprising was spontaneous, but its message was clear: people are tired of politics without accountability. The resignation of Oli and Deuba would be the strongest indication yet that Nepal is ready to start anew. It would provide room for politicians such as Gagan Thapa, Bishwo Prakash Sharma, and other new-generation leaders to restore political credibility. Without this change, even the upcoming election on 21 Falgun will be in danger of becoming another meaningless ritual.

All democracies must be refreshed, and Nepal's is way behind schedule. Oli, Deuba, and Prachanda must understand that their staying on is a strain in the present. Stepping aside from politics now will not be their loss, but their legacy. The leadership test is not winning the next election but knowing how to get out of the way for the next generation. Only then will Nepal's politics catch its breath again, and democracy regain the confidence it has lost.