Spread the love

By Our Reporter

Nepal’s democratic journey over the past 35 years has been busy, dramatic, and often loud. Seven national elections, multiple regime shifts, a people’s movement, a decade long conflict, and the transition to a federal republic have all promised one thing: better economic lives for ordinary citizens. The numbers show some progress. The lived reality tells a more uncomfortable story.

Yes, the economy has expanded roughly fourfold and per capita income has grown more than seven times since the early 1990s. Poverty has declined on paper. But these gains have not translated into the broad economic confidence that political parties repeatedly promised after each election. The March 5 midterm vote is taking place under that long shadow of unmet expectations.

The deeper problem is consistency. Nepal’s growth pattern looks less like steady progress and more like a patient with an irregular heartbeat. Growth spikes in years of political calm and good weather, then falls back when instability returns. Agriculture and services still carry the economy, while industry remains weak. For the current fiscal year, projected growth of about 3.5 percent sits far below the ambitious slogans now echoing across campaign stages.

Political parties keep selling the same dream. Ten percent growth, mass job creation, rapid prosperity. The gap between these promises and policy realism is becoming almost ritualistic. Economist Dilli Raj Khanal’s warning rings true. Campaign rhetoric is not economic policy. Without institutional discipline and steady execution, these targets remain decorative numbers in glossy manifestos.

The human cost of this gap is visible in one painful statistic. More than six million Nepali youths are now working abroad. When a country exports its workforce at this scale, it cannot claim that domestic economic opportunity is healthy. Remittances may cushion the macro numbers, but they also mask structural weakness. Families survive, but the national production base remains thin.

This is where the political class faces a credibility test it has so far failed to pass. After every major political shift, leaders promised that the next phase would deliver real change. After the restoration of democracy. After the peace process. After the constitution. After federalism. Each time, public patience was asked to stretch a little further.

Even after Nepal became a federal democratic republic, the expected economic takeoff has not materialized. Growth has improved at moments, then slowed again. Policy continuity remains fragile. Governments change, priorities shift, and implementation weakens. Several observers now openly ask an uncomfortable question: if the everyday economic condition of citizens has not improved in a decisive way, what exactly was achieved through such sweeping political transformation?

Finance minister Rameshwar Khanal offers a partial explanation. Election seasons do inject cash into the market. Campaign spending boosts short term demand and even creates temporary jobs. But this is economic sugar, not nutrition. Prices rise, activity spikes briefly, then the underlying weaknesses return. Even he acknowledges that once prices rise during election cycles, they rarely fall back.

Nepal’s record nine percent growth in the rebound year after the earthquake shows what is possible when conditions align. But the inability to sustain momentum reveals the deeper institutional problem. Political instability, weak industrial expansion, and policy inconsistency continue to hold the economy back.

The federal era was supposed to correct many of these structural issues by bringing governance closer to citizens. Instead, coordination problems, fiscal stress, and administrative confusion have often diluted the expected benefits. The system itself is not the only issue. Political behavior inside the system matters just as much.

Democracy has delivered political inclusion and greater openness. It has not yet delivered the steady economic lift that voters were led to expect. Until parties move beyond headline promises and commit to disciplined economic management, the cycle will likely repeat.

Voters are no longer judging parties only by their slogans. They are watching the numbers, and more importantly, their own household realities. A republic cannot live forever on the memory of political change. At some point, it must show economic results that ordinary citizens can feel in their daily lives. Nepal is approaching that point of reckoning.