Spread the love

By Rabi Raj Thapa

Politics in South Asia looks exciting these days. The Republic of Bangladesh is impatiently waiting for its forthcoming election on 12 February 2026. Nepal will then hold its election about 20 days later, for which the country seems to be dragging its feet slowly and clumsily.

Nepal’s March 5, 2026 election has become more individualistic and self-centered than people– and party–oriented. An election for prime minister should not resemble a Nepal Idol contest. People are sick and tired of seeing the same old, stale faces again and again—whether it is Balen Shah, K. P. Oli, Gagan Thapa, Harka Sampang, Kul Man, or Rabi Lamichhane.

The paradox of Nepali politics is that leaders begin declaring themselves prime ministers even before receiving the people’s mandate. This is propaganda, not real politics.

A slippery slope for federal Nepal is about to begin with this election because nothing has changed since the Gen-Z protests except the faces. Deuba is gone and replaced by Gagan; UML remains, and Oli is still there; Prachanda destroyed his own party, yet he is still politically alive. Gen-Z trusted a few leaders to govern, but they shamefully ditched Gen-Z to become elected members of parliament, without any guilt or accountability.

A simple example is the people’s favorite mayor, Balen Shah, who abandoned his voters because he wanted to become prime minister before completing his tenure.

Now, the Government of Nepal has finally formed a Central Integrated Security Command under the Home Secretary, along with a Central Integrated Election Monitoring Cell. This has given hope that the government is serious about holding elections on March 5, 2026.

Besides these developments, there are still uncertainties about creating a safe and smooth election environment. The government and political parties appear biased and prejudiced against the traditional establishments of Hindutva, Sanatan Dharma, and the institution of monarchy. This could have long-term consequences in the future. For many people, this is unacceptable and may lead to conflict and confrontation.

This is where Nepali people suspect the involvement of the “deep state” and foreign hands behind the current political conflicts, chaos, and instability. Most alarming is that the public at large anticipates more violence and disturbances in the future.

Nonetheless, time is running out for election readiness for both the government and the Election Commission. Voters are still not prepared. Many hardly know their candidates well enough to choose the right one. They have very little information about the credibility and contributions of political leaders today.

Political uncertainty is breeding confusion and chaos in Nepal. The government is not confident enough to manage security and election arrangements yet. From a security perspective, it would be prudent to engage metropolitan security personnel and even private security forces, alongside the Nepal Army, APF, and Nepal Police during the election period.

Intelligence is of the utmost importance. Past election disturbances in specific booths and areas demand strong security preparation, monitoring, and control. Profiling known troublemakers can help prevent booth capturing and other disruptions. There are also risks where old and new party cadres may clash due to conflicting interests.

A successful election cycle involves several stages—from preparation to voting, securing ballot boxes, and transporting them for counting. Any interruption in this process may result in conflict, chaos, and an incomplete election.

Uncertainty is dangerous in politics and can ultimately lead to tyranny. The present interim government does not appear competent or confident enough to conduct the election successfully. However, it has no option to postpone the election under any pretext. Any delay would inevitably bring further chaos and instability to the country.

Therefore, let us hope that the concerned government stakeholders—especially the Election Commission—stop limiting themselves to monologues about preparedness and instead focus on serious groundwork.