Spread the love

By Our Political Analyst

The sudden demand by both the CPN-UML and some section of the Nepali Congress (NC) to reinstate the dissolved House of Representatives has triggered confusion and concern across political circles. What began as a constitutional debate has now turned into a risky political gamble that could alienate the very generation that reshaped Nepal’s political landscape just two months ago.

For the UML, the reinstatement call is a clear attempt to regain lost ground after the Gen Z movement of September 8–9 toppled KP Sharma Oli’s government. Oli’s return to the “House restoration” agenda signals a desire to rewrite the narrative and reclaim political legitimacy through judicial or street means rather than through the ballot. The UML leadership knows that an election scheduled for March 5, 2026, as planned, would test its popularity after a major political setback. Hence, the push for reinstatement is as much about buying time as it is about avoiding electoral humiliation.

What has surprised many, however, is the Nepali Congress’s decision to echo the UML’s position. Until recently, the Congress was positive about the upcoming elections, viewing them as an opportunity to form a stable, legitimate government through public mandate. But with a section of its former lawmakers launching a signature campaign for House reinstatement, the party now appears divided and inconsistent. The move, initiated under ex-chief whip Shyam Kumar Ghimire, reflects not consensus but confusion within the Congress. Some insiders see it as an attempt by the establishment faction to undercut reformist leaders pushing for leadership change through the special convention.

This political shift has deeper implications. The demand for reinstatement goes directly against the spirit of the Gen Z movement that dismantled the old order and led to the House’s dissolution. That youth-led uprising rejected the political stagnation symbolized by endless power-sharing and demanded fresh elections as a path to renewal. The idea of reinstating the same dissolved House not only insults that sentiment but risks provoking the youth again.

So far, Gen Z activists have supported the election schedule, accepting it as a democratic route to form a new government based on people’s will. But if traditional parties appear to be reversing that progress for their own convenience, the fragile calm could easily shatter. Restoring the House would be seen as an attempt to revive a discredited political structure and undermine the public demand for generational and systemic change.

Both the Congress and the UML seem to have forgotten that political legitimacy in the current climate no longer flows from institutions alone but from the people who forced those institutions to reset. Reinstating the House would not solve Nepal’s political crisis—it would reopen it. By clinging to outdated power equations, the two largest parties risk placing themselves directly at odds with a generation that no longer trusts them.

The real test for Nepal’s democracy is not whether the old House returns but whether its leaders can face the people in a fair election without fear. Anything less will only invite another wave of rebellion.

Be that as it may, the political actors have proved that the existing constitution has created further political chaos.