Spread the love

By Our Reporter

Jhapa constituency number 5 offers a sharp snapshot of how elections now play out. What should be a place for conversation with voters has turned into a constant performance. Cameras stay switched on, microphones move from face to face, and one question refuses to go away: who will you vote for? With high profile candidates like KP Sharma Oli and Balen Shah in the race, the area has become easy content. Online views take priority, and voter dignity slips into the background.

This flood of falsehoods did not start suddenly. It grew over time, fed by a few clear forces. Social media favors speed and shock. A short clip with a bold claim travels much faster than a thoughtful discussion on policy. Political competition has also turned harsh. Parties and supporters feel pressure to shape public mood at any cost. On top of that, digital tools and AI have made manipulation cheap and easy. A phone and basic skills are enough to produce content that looks real.

Street interviews show the problem clearly. Voters often feel trapped. Many answer just to move on with their day. Content creators then select clips that match their political leaning and present them as proof of public opinion. When reality does not deliver the desired result, some simply create it. AI voices, altered images, and fake quotes fill the gap. The result is a sense of momentum that may not exist beyond a screen.

For parties and candidates, the damage adds up fast. False claims can bring quick attention, but they also pollute the campaign space. Candidates who want to talk about jobs, prices, health, or education struggle to break through the noise. Time that should go into explaining plans gets wasted on denying fake videos and misleading posts. Over time, public trust erodes for everyone, even those who tried to stay away from dirty tactics.

Voters suffer even more. Many now rely on social media as their main source of political information. When facts and falsehoods mix freely, confusion follows. Some people believe wrong claims. Others give up and trust nothing at all. Both outcomes harm democracy. A voter who doubts every message cannot make a clear choice. Once trust breaks, rebuilding it takes years.

Election results also feel the strain. Repeated exposure to misleading content can shape perception, especially among undecided voters. It can lower turnout by spreading cynicism or fear. It can also push people to vote based on emotion instead of judgment. Even when results reflect the popular will, doubts about fairness linger, and acceptance weakens.

The Election Commission has rules to deal with this mess. The code of conduct bans false, misleading, and hateful content. Laws allow fines and even jail. Still, the problem keeps growing. Enforcement struggles because social media moves fast and ignores borders. The commission lacks enough technical capacity and trained staff to track every fake account or edited clip in real time. By the time action arrives, the content has already done its work.

Poor use of social media sits at the center of the crisis. Platforms reward attention, not accuracy. Political actors exploit this system. Some leaders even share misleading posts themselves, sending a clear message that rules do not matter. When leaders act this way, supporters follow.

Fixing this will not be easy, but it is possible. Enforcement must move faster, with dedicated teams and technical support to respond in real time. Political parties need to accept responsibility and discipline their own members. Social media companies must cooperate during elections, act quickly on harmful content, and label AI generated material clearly.

Citizens also play a role. Basic media literacy, checking sources, pausing before sharing, and relying on credible outlets can limit damage.

Social media is here to stay, and elections will always be competitive. The real choice lies between disorder and restraint. Clear rules, quick action, and shared responsibility can slow the flood. Without that effort, falsehoods will keep shaping elections, and democracy will keep paying the price.

March 5 poll: Top leaders are not sleeping easy

By Our Reporter

The House of Representatives election on March 5, 2026 has pushed Nepal’s biggest political names into uneasy territory. On the surface, rallies sound confident and slogans stay sharp. Beneath that, doubt hangs heavy. The Gen Z protests of September 8 and 9 rattled assumptions that parties once took for granted. This election is not only about winning seats. It is about checking if old promises still convince a changing electorate.

One major shift lies in how voters, especially younger ones, now think. First time voters show little attachment to party symbols or long careers. They care less about who led past movements and more about daily concerns. Jobs, rising prices, corruption, and basic accountability dominate conversations. When leaders respond with familiar lines, impatience grows. Even constituencies once labelled safe now feel uncertain.

New political forces have widened that uncertainty. Groups like the Rastriya Swatantra Party and several independents tap into anger that has been building for years. Their message is simple and blunt. Reject the old guard. That message may lack detail, but it shakes traditional vote banks. With many candidates in the race, even a small shift can flip a result.

Senior leaders also carry the weight of their past. Long careers leave long trails. KP Sharma Oli must answer criticism over his response to the Gen Z protests. Gagan Kumar Thapa faces quiet resistance within his own party while juggling national duties and local campaigning. Pushpa Kamal Dahal hears accusations that he moved away from Maoist ideals and sidelined conflict era victims. Madhav Kumar Nepal still deals with a corruption case under court review. Rabi Lamichhane remains under pressure over cooperative fraud allegations. Voters may not track legal fine print, but suspicion alone dents confidence.

Jhapa 5 shows how shaky old certainty has become. Oli has represented the area since the early 1990s. The entry of Balen Shah has changed the mood. Shah pulls younger voters and strong online support. Oli still relies on local networks and past development work. Internal discontent within UML and the arrival of new voters have narrowed the gap. A seat once seen as secure now feels like a tight contest.

Sarlahi 4 tells another story. Thapa left Kathmandu, assuming this seat would be smoother. Instead, he faces Amresh Kumar Singh, a local figure with roots in Congress and a record of winning independently. Thapa’s national role limits his presence on the ground. In a constituency where personal connection matters, absence can be costly.

Rukum East, Rautahat 1, and Chitwan 2 follow a similar pattern. Dahal’s symbolic return to a Maoist base meets resistance from a martyr’s son backed by rival forces. Nepal must compete without alliance support this time. Lamichhane remains popular in Chitwan, yet legal scrutiny shadows every step. In each case, name recognition no longer guarantees comfort.

Observers also note that younger leaders face their own hurdles. Online popularity does not always turn into votes. Organization, turnout, and booth level work still decide outcomes. Many new faces lack that ground network.

All signs point toward a fragmented result. A single party majority looks remote. Coalition talks may begin even before ballots are counted. The Gen Z protests did not hand victory to anyone, but they unsettled everyone. This election will test not only who wins, but who still holds the trust of a restless public.