Submit your Article

The maxim that democracy should not collapse even if the parliament collapses is the essence of a democratic system worth its name. This makes all the more sense at a time when Nepal’s political transition has reached a strange turning point yet again. There was no dearth of people, who expected the dissolution of the House of Representatives, the lower chamber of the bicameral parliament, to give the country caught in a crisis situation a new direction. Contrary to their expectations, Nepal finds herself trapped in a parliamentary paradox where the parliament is simultaneously “in existence” and “non-existent.”

Four ‘constitutional figures’ stand at the center of this paradox or, say, constitutional crisis:

• The Prime Minister, who is not a member of the parliament,
• The Speaker, who continues to hold office even after the dissolution of the House of Representatives
• The National Assembly, the upper chamber of the parliament, is still active, and
• The President, who is constitutionally a part of the parliament, remains in power

All these four figures represent the unstable and constitutionally complex political situation of Nepal.

Government sans parliament

President Ramchandra Paudel, while appointing Sushila Karki as the Prime Minister of the Interim Council of Ministers on Sept 12 as per Article 61(4) of the Constitution, has relied on the provisions of the existing Constitution while setting a deadline of six months for holding elections to the House of Representatives. According to the said provision, the Prime Minister can remain in office for a maximum of six months even if he is not a member of Parliament. However, in the current political situation, that deadline has become more of a political issue than a legal one.

In order to address the peculiar and extraordinary political situation that has emerged in the country and to respectfully address the aspirations and expectations for change expressed by the current young generation, the President has appointed Sushila Karki as the Head of the Interim Government after necessary consultations and discussions with various political parties and stakeholders. This decision has been taken as an attempt to lead the country towards stability on the constitutional path and end the current political deadlock. 

Prime Minister Karki was appointed in the unusual situation arising from the current political crisis, dissolution of Parliament, and lack of executive leadership, in response to the demands for political reform and change that emerged after the GenZ movement of Sept 8-9. The interim government has been formed in accordance with the Doctrine of Necessity as a temporary arrangement to lead the country towards stability and elections before the formation of a permanent government.

Speaker with a limited role

This is not the first time in Nepal’s parliamentary history that the Speaker has remained in office even after the dissolution of the House of Representatives. Even after King Gyanendra Shah dissolved the House of Representatives on 22 May 2002, Speaker Taranath Ranabhat remained in office for almost four years—till 28 April 2006. The first meeting of the restored House of Representatives held the same day, after the success of the Second People’s Movement-2006, steered Nepal’s democratic journey in a new direction.

A situation similar to this seems to be in place at present. Even after the dissolution of the lower chamber, Speaker Devraj Ghimire remains in office, though with a limited role, sparking a politico-constitutional debate.

Half a legislature?

Despite the dissolution of the House of Representatives, the National Assembly still exists, which reflects a kind of institutional continuity. But this continuity is not based on full legitimacy, because when only half of the Parliament is active, the parliamentary system remains only on paper. The National Assembly can discuss and make suggestions, but in the absence of the House of Representatives, it cannot make or pass laws. Therefore, the current situation has become a mixture of an incomplete parliament and a constitutional crisis, weakening the balance of the federal governance structure, where the core spirit of people’s representation—the direct voice of the people and participation in the decision-making process—has become inactive. 

As a result, the people’s control over policymaking and governance—through elected representatives—is eroding, thereby raising questions on the credibility of democratic institutions and the spirit of the Constitution.

A decisive role, limited powers 

Although the Constitution of Nepal grants the President only formal and limited powers, his role can become particularly important in unusual political situations. When both the executive and the legislature are caught in uncertainty, the president has the potential to become the decisive force in maintaining the “constitutional balance.” In the current situation, the president’s decisions, consultations or silence will directly affect Nepal’s political course. The president’s move—either to act in defense of the constitution, democratic values and national unity or to remain inactive—will determine the course of the country’s governance structure and stability in the coming months.

What after 5 March 2026?

Nepal’s political future now seems to depend on the general elections slated for 5 March 2026. If the vote takes place on time and in a free and fair manner, the country can embark on a journey of stability and public trust. The emergence of a new leadership seems possible with the political consciousness of the new generation, the energy of the GenZ movement and the (re)awakening of civil society. But if the election gets postponed again or delayed due to political interests, the country will again fall into a cycle of constitutional vacuum and instability. In such a situation, the crisis of legitimacy will only deepen, raising crucial questions on the roles of the Prime Minister, the Speaker, the National Assembly chair and the President.

An acid test for democracy

Nepal’s democracy is once again facing a serious test today. It is a result of its own constitutional ambiguity and political insensitivity. The Prime Minister must obtain the mandate of the Parliament, the Speaker must preserve the dignity of the office, the National Assembly must show constitutional restraint, and the President must play a decisive role in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution. 5 March 2026 is not just an election date, it is a moment of re-evaluation of Nepal’s democracy. The country is at a critical juncture, where both the maturity of the leadership and the level of public trust will be measured. If this hour passes smoothly, democracy will be reborn, otherwise the republic will plunge into a serious crisis.

In today’s digital age, popular culture has become an omnipresent force in shaping how people experience happiness. From box office movies to viral TikTok clips, from social media trends to celebrity lifestyles, these cultural products create what might be called second-hand happiness: the joy or satisfaction we derive not directly from our own experiences but from observing others. While popular culture offers chances for connectivity, it also creates challenges: it can replace direct experiences with mediated ones, foster dependence on external validation, and generate fleeting satisfaction that leaves us constantly seeking the next emotional fix. Understanding this dual nature—how popular culture both enriches and potentially diminishes our well-being—is essential for navigating modern life consciously.

Consumerism and fleeting satisfaction

One major way popular culture shapes our happiness is through consumerism. We buy not just products but also the promises of happiness they bring. New gadgets, stylish clothes, and trendy lifestyle items create real but short-lived excitement. For example, when a new smartphone is released, it generates excitement, social media posts, and buzz. However, within weeks, the novelty wears off, and many consumers find themselves searching for the next product. This cycle illustrates the hedonic treadmill of consumer culture, where material goods offer real but diminishing returns, gradually teaching us to pursue happiness through external purchases rather than personal growth or meaningful relationships.

Social media: Validation and community

Social media has fundamentally transformed how we experience and share happiness, creating both unprecedented opportunities for connection and new forms of dependency. Platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter quantify social interaction through likes, comments, and shares, which can serve as both meaningful feedback and shallow validation. Content creators who share their creativity on TikTok and receive thousands of supportive reactions experience real encouragement that can fuel their imaginative progress. Yet the same metrics can become addictive, training us to measure our self-worth through digital approval and creating anxiety when expected validation doesn’t materialize.

This duality is crucial to recognize. For marginalized groups such as youth struggling with identity, individuals with rare illnesses, or people with unique interests, online platforms can be transformative. They offer access to support networks, role models, and communities that might be impossible to find locally. To illustrate, a teen exploring identity may find acceptance and understanding online, profoundly improving their mental well-being. Yet, connections often coexist with a culture of superficiality, where users curate idealized versions of their lives for external validation.
The challenge is not the digital validation itself but our overreliance on it. We tend to replace real relationships and personal growth with online approval. The question becomes not whether to engage with social media, but how to maintain agency over when and how it shapes our emotional lives.

The political economy of manufactured desire

Understanding popular culture’s relationship to happiness requires examining the economic structures that produce it. Marx’s analysis of capitalism offers useful insights here: under market systems, our emotional lives increasingly become sites of profit extraction. We don’t simply consume entertainment; we become what might be called ‘affective laborers’, generating content, engagement, and emotional investment that platforms monetize. Every Instagram post, TikTok video, or product review we create adds value to corporate platforms while these companies capture the economic rewards.

Also, let us consider the influencer’s economy: they produce lifestyle content that generates genuine entertainment and community while simultaneously functioning as advertising. Followers experience real enjoyment watching their favorite creators, but they are also being subtly directed toward consumption patterns that benefit brands and platforms. The happiness we feel is authentic, yet profit-seeking entities have carefully shaped it. Fashion and beauty industries, for instance, do not simply respond to consumer desires—they actively manufacture dissatisfaction through trends and standards, then sell products as solutions.

This doesn’t mean all popular culture is manipulative; however, it reminds us to stay aware of its economic motives. Industries profit by keeping us emotionally invested, often prioritizing revenue over our well-being. Recognizing this helps us engage critically, asking who benefits from our insecurities and what desires are shaping us.

Reconsidering second-hand happiness

Second-hand happiness deserves a more nuanced treatment than simple dismissal. Shared cultural experiences—watching a movie, celebrating a sports victory, following a beloved content creator’s journey—can generate authentic joy and meaningful connection. When we laugh at a comedy show or feel inspired by someone’s success story, that happiness is real, not illusory. Humans are fundamentally social creatures who naturally derive pleasure from collective experiences and from witnessing others’ achievements.

The issue is not vicarious experience itself but the balance and awareness with which we engage in it. Problems arise when observation replaces participation. To illustrate, when we watch travel vlogs instead of exploring our own surroundings. Difficulties also emerge when external validation becomes the main source of our self-worth. We may begin to spend more time following the lives of others than nurturing ourselves. Moreover, the constant comparison encouraged by social media often leaves us feeling inadequate and dissatisfied.

A healthy relationship with popular culture means enjoying shared experiences and digital communities while maintaining direct engagement with our own lives. It means appreciating an influencer’s aesthetic without feeling our home must match it or celebrating friends' achievements online while also pursuing our own goals offline. The goal isn’t to eliminate second-hand happiness but to ensure it complements rather than replaces first-hand experience.

Moving forward

Happiness remains fundamentally personal, rooted in direct experiences, relationships, and a sense of purpose. Popular culture can enrich these aspects by providing inspiration, facilitating social connection, and offering entertainment and meaning. However, it functions optimally as a complement to direct experience rather than a substitute. The most fulfilling lives likely integrate both: engaging with shared cultural experiences while actively cultivating personal goals, relationships, and creative expression.

Maintaining balance within systems designed to capture attention and shape desires toward consumption requires deliberate effort. This includes setting boundaries with technology, reflecting on what genuinely satisfies us, investing in meaningful relationships, and engaging with cultural products critically rather than passively.

As popular culture continues to evolve, awareness of its mechanisms allows individuals to enjoy its benefits without yielding their well-being to external validation or manufactured desire. The objective is not to choose between first-hand and second-hand happiness, but to ensure that engagement with culture enhances, rather than diminishes, personal well-being. In this way, individuals can participate fully in contemporary culture while preserving the internal sources of satisfaction that sustain them.

China’s Fourth Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee and the Xi–Trump meeting in Busan took place only days apart. On paper, one was a domestic political gathering and the other a diplomatic encounter on the sidelines of a multilateral summit. They were not linked in official statements, and neither attracted feverish global commentary. Yet, taken together, they offer a glimpse into how Beijing is adapting to a complex international environment.

Fourth plenums traditionally focus on governance questions, party discipline and institutional direction rather than dramatic policy launches. This session followed that pattern. The messaging centered on maintaining steady political control, ensuring policy continuity and fostering cautious confidence. It suggested a leadership that sees no benefit in abrupt moves, either domestically or externally, at a time of uneven economic recovery and external pushback. Three themes stood out.

First, the reaffirmation of party-led governance was not performative symbolism. In Beijing’s worldview, political cohesion and long-term planning are assets in a period marked by technological disruption and geopolitical frictions. The leadership continues to believe that diffuse decision-making would leave China vulnerable to external pressure. Second, economic language emphasised pragmatic adjustment. China did not deny its financial challenges, ranging from corrections in the property sector to demographic shifts. However, rather than promising a sudden return to high-speed growth, the plenum signalled an acceptance that the next phase will be steadier, more industrial policy-driven, and oriented around the security of supply chains and financial stability. 

Third, technology remains the core battleground. US-led restrictions on advanced chips, export controls and scrutiny of Chinese tech companies have clearly been internalized. The Plenum’s language underscored ongoing efforts to reduce reliance on foreign tech inputs and build resilience in critical sectors. This is not isolationism; it is preparation for a world where access to advanced technologies is increasingly politicized. None of this was presented as a crisis response. It reflected a system that was preparing for long-term competition, rather than one that was overwhelmed by it.

The Xi-Trump meeting in Busan fit into this context of calibrated pacing. The discussions did not produce groundbreaking agreements, nor were they expected to. Tariffs, agricultural purchases and fentanyl precursors figured in public remarks. The more telling aspect, however, was tone—measured, practical and devoid of the sharpness seen in earlier phases of US–China confrontation. For Beijing, arriving in Busan after the plenum mattered. It allowed Xi to approach talks from a position of internal consolidation, not defensive anxiety. For Washington, under a Trump return that values transactional gestures, a calmer exchange made tactical sense too.

The meeting illustrated a shared recognition: neither country benefits from sustained escalation at this moment. China is navigating an economic transition and rebuilding confidence, while the United States is focused on industrial reshoring, alliance repair, and domestic political contests. Strategic rivalry continues, especially in technology and security, but uninterrupted confrontation is costly, and both sides appear willing to slow the tempo. This was not détente. It was a way to test whether channels can stay open without implying softness.

If one looks at global alignments, markets and diplomatic behavior since these events, the picture that emerges is not sudden stability but a more predictable cadence. Supply chains are diversifying, not breaking. Export controls evolve, but trade persists. Security partnerships deepen, yet complete economic decoupling remains improbable. The US–China rivalry remains as real as it was a few years ago. It simply appears to be settling into a slower, steadier phase one, where each side tests its structural endurance. This rhythm benefits nobody spectacularly, but it also harms nobody dramatically. It suits countries that want time to build capacity, especially powers striving for strategic autonomy, including India and the European Union. 

For New Delhi, the Plenum-Busan period did not signal a change in thaw with China or a weakening Western alignment. Instead, it reinforced an approach that India had already adopted: steady engagement with the West on critical technology and defense, alongside measured management of the China relationship to avoid avoidable shocks.

India’s border concerns with China have not lessened. Military deployments remain robust; infrastructure development in border regions continues. At the same time, diplomatic channels remain open, and senior-level military talks continue. People-to-people and business-to-business ties have also begun growing in the past few months, signalling that both countries are understanding and navigating turbulent geopolitical spaces. 

India is not repositioning away from the United States. Strategic cooperation on supply chains, advanced manufacturing, space and maritime security has only deepened. The expectation that any external partner, even the United States, will perfectly align with India’s priorities has faded. Statements from Washington after Operation Sindoor served as a reminder that every partnership has its chafing points. So, India is doing what rising powers with long memories do: building capability, banking partnerships, and keeping options open. Instead of dramatic swings, we see incremental strengthening in areas such as semiconductor policy, defence co-production, digital infrastructure exports, energy corridors, and tighter coordination with Europe and the Indo-Pacific. 

Ultimately, neither the Fourth Plenum nor the Busan meeting reveals the future. What they tell us, instead, is how major powers behave when they don’t fully trust the world and aren't entirely sure of themselves, either. China tightened its seams before it stepped onto the diplomatic stage. The United States played along, not because it suddenly believes in strategic harmony, but because endless confrontation is exhausting and expensive. And India, watching both, is quietly filing away lessons. Nobody is “winning” here; nobody is collapsing either. This is a moment of political adulthood where states learn to live with discomfort, ambiguity, and the slow grind of structural rivalry. It’s not dramatic, and that’s precisely the point. The future is being shaped in paperwork, quiet conversations and long-term investments, not in summit fireworks.

For India and the region, the task is not to predict which way the wind blows, but to build so that whichever way it blows, you don’t get swept off your feet. Great power politics right now is less a game of grand moves, more like distance running: steady breathing, keeping pace, occasionally accelerating, never collapsing from your own adrenaline. In the years ahead, we can expect headlines, crises, breakthroughs, and provocations again. But these quieter phases matter too.

The author is a PhD candidate at the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. He is also a life member of the International Center for Peace Studies

A new political force—the Nepali Communist Party (NCP)—has been officially announced at an event held in Bhrikutimandap, Kathmandu, on Wednesday. The announcement marks the unification of 10 different communist factions into a single party, seen as a major shift in Nepal’s left-wing politics.

During the unity declaration ceremony, it was decided that Pushpa Kamal Dahal will serve as the party’s coordinator, while Madhav Kumar Nepal will take the role of co-coordinator. The proposal, put forward by leader Mahendra Raya Yadav, was endorsed by the assembly.

Senior leader Jhalanath Khanal of the CPN (Unified Socialist) has been given third priority in the newly-formed party, following an agreement among top leaders, including Dahal, earlier on Wednesday morning. Previously, Bamdev Gautam had been designated third, but Khanal’s dissatisfaction over the unity process led to negotiations. Eventually, he agreed to join the NCP with third priority and attended the announcement ceremony. The hierarchy now places Dahal first, Nepal second, Khanal third, Gautam fourth, and Narayan Kaji Shrestha fifth.

Khanal had held talks with CPN-UML Chair KP Sharma Oli just a day earlier, expressing reservations about the unity process and even hinting at initiating party reorganization. However, he eventually sided with the Dahal-Nepal faction.

The National Unity Convention of the newly-formed NCP endorsed nine key resolutions, which include decisions on the party’s name, election symbol, property and organizational structure. The proposals, presented by leader Barsaman Pun, were approved with applause from representatives.

The key resolutions include:

1. Formation of the unified party named the Nepali Communist Party (NCP).
2. Adoption of a five-pointed star as the election symbol.
3. Recognition of all members of uniting parties as members of the NCP.
4. Integration of central committees and structures of all uniting parties under the new organization.
5. Authorization to the coordinator and co-coordinator to finalize organizational adjustments.
6. Declaration that all people’s representatives elected under previous party symbols (Maoist Center, Unified Socialist, Socialist Party and Maoist Socialist) will now represent the NCP.
7. Transfer of all movable and immovable assets of the merging parties to the NCP.
8. Endorsement of the party’s official manifesto.
9. Adoption of the party’s constitution with necessary suggestions and amendments.

At the ceremony, leader Dev Gurung unveiled the party’s 23-point declaration, emphasizing unity and renewal in Nepal’s leftist movement.

The 23-point declarations:

1. To steadfastly uphold Nepal’s national sovereignty, territorial integrity, dignity, and independence.
2. To work with honesty, loyalty, and dedication toward the nation and its people.
3. To remain firm in the universal truths of Marxism-Leninism and apply them creatively according to Nepal’s specific conditions.
4. To remain committed to the socialist revolution and program, and to move firmly toward achieving the great goal of establishing scientific socialism as envisioned by the party since its inception.
5. To remain committed to democratic republicanism, protect the achievements of the people’s revolution, and work toward strengthening the republic and reforming and restructuring all state organs as necessary.
6. To defend the current Constitution of Nepal while taking proactive initiatives to introduce progressive reforms in the governance system, electoral process, federal structure, and by reducing the number of local levels and representatives.
7. To continuously strive to end corruption, irregularities, and delays, and to promote good governance, transparency, social justice, and national prosperity.
8. To take effective initiatives to establish a high-level, empowered Property Investigation Commission to investigate the assets of all individuals who have held public office and take strict action against the corrupt.
9. To make public service delivery efficient, fast, and effective, and to ensure public access to basic services such as education and health.
10. To fight against all forms of exploitation, oppression, injustice, discrimination, inequality, and social distortions present in the current Nepali society.
11. To struggle for ensuring the rights of women, Dalits, the oppressed, minorities, marginalized communities, indigenous nationalities, and all classes, castes, and regions excluded from the state’s mainstream.
12. To prioritize research and development and advance the overall development of the nation.
13. To take special initiatives to develop an independent and self-reliant economy, create employment opportunities, and eradicate poverty.
14. To work toward the economic, social, and cultural transformation of Nepali society by prioritizing the development of agriculture, industries based on domestic raw materials, tourism, and hydropower through well-planned strategies.
15. To conduct development campaigns that ensure the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources.
16. To remain committed to formulating climate change and environment-friendly development plans and to effective disaster management.
17. To raise the voices of the people and stand with them in their joys and sorrows.
18. To address the issues and aspirations of the GenZ generation.
19. To review past activities comprehensively, correct shortcomings, and move ahead with broad improvements, restructuring, and transformation in working style.
20. To strengthen internal democracy within the party and develop and implement a scientific system for leadership development and transfer.
21. To engage all party leaders and cadres in productive and labor-oriented work.
22. To strictly adhere to communist conduct, discipline, and ethics.
23. To adopt a simple and transparent lifestyle and working approach.

Addressing the event, Coordinator Dahal has credited the GenZ movement for playing a crucial role in forging unity among ten communist factions. He said the sacrifices made by the GenZ protesters exposed the weaknesses within political parties and inspired them to reform.

“The GenZ youth, who came to the streets on Sept 8 demanding good governance and stability while opposing corruption and political disorder, deeply struck us. Their movement made us realize our shortcomings,” he said. “Their sacrifices inspired us to correct our mistakes and begin a new campaign for transformation.”

Paying repeated tributes to the “martyrs of the GenZ movement,” Dahal said their role was instrumental in pushing the communist leaders toward unity. “Had they not made those sacrifices, we might not have realized our weaknesses and initiated this new phase of unity so soon,” he said. He further pledged that the new party will prioritize the aspirations and needs of the youth not only in the party structure but also in state institutions. “This is a historic commitment and a moment of self-reflection for us,” he added.

Calling Wednesday a “historic day” for the communist movement, Prachanda said, “Possibly, this is the first time that ten different communist groups have united at once. This unity, formed by leaders who have gone through ideological struggles in their respective fronts, is truly unprecedented.” He claimed that the day would be remembered as a milestone in Nepal’s communist and political history. “It is not only historic from the perspective of communist unity but also as a foundation for national unity to resolve the current political crisis,” he said.

Dahal further asserted that no one can stop the newly formed Nepali Communist Party from becoming the country’s number one political force. “Now, no one can stop this party from being the number one party in Nepal. Some reactionaries may lose sleep over it—let them. We will take this unity declaration campaign across the country,” he said. He also urged for humility despite the success. “While appealing for electoral mobilization and national support, we must not fall into arrogance,” he added.

Dahal emphasized that the party has no alternative but to correct its weaknesses. “We will take all advice and criticism seriously. There is no alternative to correcting our flaws and going among the people with full dedication,” he said.

Meanwhile, Co-ordinator Madhav Kumar Nepal appealed to the GenZ generation and social activists to join hands with the new party. “We are ready to work together with the GenZ generation for social justice, good governance, and against corruption,” he said, revealing that several GenZ leaders had joined the party earlier that morning. “I want to congratulate those who joined us and call upon other GenZ friends—let’s move forward together, hand in hand, against corruption, for good governance, and to correct the distortions seen in society and politics,” Nepal said.

He also expressed willingness to collaborate with social activists. “They shoulder great responsibility. We want to move forward with all campaigners working for social change, good governance, and the prosperity of the people,” he added.

Similarly, Narayan Kaji Shrestha stated that the new unity should serve as a foundation for comprehensive integration and reorganization of the communist movement. He also called for joint efforts with genuine democrats to defend the constitution, democracy, and national sovereignty, while urging ideological and cultural renewal within the party.

Meanwhile, Bamdev Gautam has claimed that the newly formed party’s membership will reach 10m. He said the party currently has around 1–1.2m members, but expects the number to rise to 10m as they reach out to the public.

Gautam also called for the introduction of a directly elected presidential system and a fully proportional electoral system. “We must end the current system that changes governments month after month and reform the state’s governance structure by establishing a directly elected president and implementing a fully proportional electoral system,” he said.