Submit your Article

The Election Commission (EC) has informed that it made the banking and financial institutions open some of their branches on public holidays as well. 

The government has given public holidays from March 4 to 6 for the House of Representatives elections. However, to facilitate elections, the EC requested the banks and financial institutions to run some of their branches on these holidays too.

The EC requested the Office of Comptroller General for facilitating in submission of revenue, an essential part of financial responsibility.

On March 5, Nepal is holding the election for the 275-member House of Representative(HoR) which will be the 10th democratic elections in Nepal’s history, including the referendum of 1980 and two elections of Constituent Assembly elections. The election is taking place against the backdrop of the Sept 8-9 Genz protests. Nepal’s electoral history from 1959 to 2022 reflects a gradual evolution from a nascent democracy with limited participation to a complex multiparty system, emphasizing inclusive representation. This is an overview of Nepal’s electoral exercise since 1959. 

1959 Parliamentary Elections

Nepal’s first parliamentary election was held in 1959, with polling conducted over 45 days—from Feb 18 to April 10—due to limited transportation and logistical constraints. A total of 4,246,468 voters were registered, and turnout stood at 42.19 percent.  Although participation was modest, the election was widely regarded as a historic democratic milestone. Nine political parties and 12 independent candidates contested the polls. The House of Representatives comprised 109 members, while the National Assembly had 36 members—half nominated by the King and half elected. The Nepali Congress secured victory with 74 seats. 

Other parties won as follows: Nepal Rastrabadi Gorkha Parisad (19), Samyukta Prajatantra Party (5), Nepal Communist Party (4), Nepal Praja Parisad (Acharya) (2), Nepal Praja Parisad (Mishra) (2), and independents (4). Dwarika Devi Thakurani became Nepal’s first female lawmaker. Several political heavyweights, including DR Regmi, Tanka Prasad Acharya, and KI Singh, were defeated. Nepali Congress leader BP Koirala became Nepal’s first democratically elected Prime Minister. However, in 1960, King Mahendra dismissed the government and imposed the party-less Panchayat system, halting parliamentary democracy for three decades.

1980 Referendum

The 1980 referendum marked a critical turning point. Voters were asked to choose between a reformed Panchayat system and a multiparty democracy. Out of 7,192,451 registered voters, turnout reached 66.93 percent. Invalid votes accounted for 7.64 percent, reflecting both the novelty of the process and voter confusion. The reformed Panchayat system secured 54.79 percent of the vote, while 45.21 percent supported multiparty democracy. Notably, 19 districts, including Kathmandu, Lalitpur, Bhaktapur, Morang, Sunsari, Kaski, Rupandehi, Dang, and Kanchanpur, voted in favor of multiparty democracy. The result revealed a country divided between continuity and change, foreshadowing the pro-democracy movement of 1990.

1990 Restoration of Democracy

The Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal 1990, restored multiparty democracy and established a bicameral legislature comprising the House of Representatives and the National Assembly. The National Assembly consisted of 60 members: 35 elected by the HoR through a single transferable vote system, 15 elected by an electoral college from the five development regions (three per region), and 10 appointed by the King. Members served six-year terms, with one-third retiring every two years. The House of Representatives consisted of 205 constituencies.

1991 Parliamentary Elections

The first election after the restoration of democracy was held on 12 May 1991. Of 11,191,777 registered voters, 65.15 percent cast their ballots. Invalid votes stood at 4.42 percent. Among 1,345 candidates, seven women and three independents were elected. The Nepali Congress won 110 seats, followed by CPN-UML with 69 seats, Samyukta Janamorcha with 9, and Nepal Sadbhawana Party with 6. The remaining seats went to smaller parties. Article 114 of the 1990 Constitution required parties to field at least five percent women candidates. Accordingly, 80 women contested the election, of whom seven were elected. A by-election in February 1994 increased the number of women lawmakers to eight. Daman Nath Dhungana was elected Speaker. Girija Prasad Koirala became Prime Minister, but internal party disputes led to the dissolution of Parliament in 1994.

1994 Mid-term Elections 

Mid-term elections were held on 15 Nov 1994. Registered voters increased to 12,327,329, and turnout reached 61.86 percent. The CPN-UML emerged as the largest party with 88 seats, followed by the Nepali Congress (83), Rastriya Prajatantra Party (20), Nepal Majdoor Kisan Party (4), Nepal Sadbhawana Party (3), and independents (7). Of 86 female candidates, six were elected, including Sailaja Acharya, Lila Shrestha, Mina Pandey, Bidya Devi Bhandari, Sahana Pradhan, and Kamala Devi Panta. Manmohan Adhikari of CPN-UML formed a minority government that lasted six months. This Parliament endorsed the Mahakali Treaty with India.

1999 Parliamentary Elections

Held on 17 May 1999, the election saw 2,238 candidates representing 39 political parties and independents. There were 13,518,839 registered voters, with turnout at 65.79 percent. Of 143 women candidates, 12 were elected. The Nepali Congress won 111 seats, CPN-UML 71, RPP 11, and the remaining seats went to smaller parties. Tara Nath Ranabhat was elected Speaker. Krishna Prasad Bhattarai initially became Prime Minister but was later replaced by Girija Prasad Koirala.

First Constituent Assembly Elections (2008) 

Following the Interim Constitution of 2007, Nepal held its historic Constituent Assembly (CA) election on 10 April 2008. The 601-member CA included 240 members elected through First-Past-The-Post (FPTP), 335 through Proportional Representation (PR), and 26 nominated members. Of 17,611,832 registered voters, turnout was 61.70 percent. Combining FPTP and PR results, the Maoists won 220 seats, Nepali Congress 110, CPN-UML 103, Madhesi Janadhikar Forum 52, and Tarai-Madhes Loktantrik Party 20. In total, 25 parties gained representation. Women held 197 seats (32.8 percent), marking a significant leap in inclusion. Pushpa Kamal Dahal became Prime Minister, though his government collapsed within nine months amid institutional conflict.

Second Constituent Assembly Elections (2013) 

The second CA election was held on 19 Nov 2013. Turnout reached 78.34 percent. Nepali Congress emerged as the largest party, followed by CPN-UML and the Maoists. Women secured 176 seats (nearly 29 percent) of the Assembly. Sushil Koirala became Prime Minister with CPN-UML support. The Assembly promulgated the Constitution of Nepal in 2015, establishing a federal democratic republic.

2017 Parliamentary Elections 

The first federal parliamentary elections under the 2015 Constitution were held in two phases in November and December 2017. Out of 15,427,938 registered voters, turnout was nearly 69 percent. Under FPTP, UML won 80 seats, Nepali Congress 23, Maoist Centre 36, and others 26. Under PR, UML secured 41 seats, Nepali Congress 40, and Maoist Centre 17. Women won 92 seats in the 275-member House. An electoral alliance between UML and Maoists later formed the Nepal Communist Party, with KP Sharma Oli as Prime Minister.

2022 Parliamentary Elections

The election was held on 20 Nov 2022. Registered voters totaled 17,988,570, with turnout at 61.4 percent. Nepali Congress emerged as the largest party with 89 seats, followed by CPN-UML (78), Maoist Centre (32), Rastriya Swatantra Party (21), and RPP (14). Women secured 91 seats in the 275-member House, reflecting continued though uneven progress in representation. Pushpa Kamal Dahal became Prime Minister in a coalition government, underscoring the era of fragmented mandates and coalition politics.

Road to 2026 Parliamentary Elections

Following the GenZ movement, parliamentary elections are scheduled for March 5. There are 18,903,689 registered voters: 9,663,358 men, 9,240,131 women, and 200 registered under the LGBTIQA+ category. Under the PR system, 63 parties are participating under 58 symbols. Under FPTP, 65 of 107 registered parties are contesting. A total of 3,406 candidates are contesting under FPTP and 3,135 under PR, including 1,772 women and 1,363 men.

Conclusion

From the landmark 1959 election that brought BP Koirala led the inclusive, mixed electoral system of the federal republic era, Nepal’s parliamentary journey reflects resilience amid instability and transformation. The party-less system endorsed in 1980, the restoration of democracy in 1990, the turbulence of the 1990s, and the republican shift after 2008 collectively illustrate a gradual deepening of democratic participation and institutional reform. While governments have frequently changed and alliances have shifted, voter engagement has remained relatively robust. Representation, particularly of women and marginalized groups, has expanded through proportional mechanisms and constitutional mandates. 

As Nepal approaches the 2026 elections, its electoral history reveals both the persistent challenges of political consolidation and the enduring public commitment to democratic choice and pluralism.

The Election Commission (EC) has directed the Election Code of Conducts Monitoring Officers to effectively implement the code of conduct until the voting centres are closed from today. 

The House of Representatives (HoR) election is scheduled to take place on March 5.

The EC has assigned the Assistant Chief District Officer and Chief of the District Treasury Office as the election code of conduct monitoring officers with specific responsibility. 

The EC has directed the concerned officials to effectively implement the code of conduct as per the provisions stated in the Election Code of Conducts, 2082 BS.

As per the election code of conduct, the political parties and candidates have been barred from being engaged in election publicity campaigns since last midnight. 

With the beginning of the silence period for the March 5 election to the House of Representatives, the election publicity is banned.

The silence period provides time for the voters to decide their voting for the favourable candidates. 

The election publicity and silence period are also effective on social networking sites. 

I am writing this blog just hours before the silent period for the March 5 election begins. By the time you read this, campaign speeches will have stopped, party flags will flutter quietly, and candidates will retreat from microphones and mass rallies. But the conversations—those in tea shops, buses, college canteens, and family dinner tables—will continue.

This blog is not an endorsement of any political force. It is an attempt to capture the people’s mood—what I have seen, heard, and felt over the past months—through my tea-shop gossip sessions, and through countless conversations with ordinary voters across the country. In  2024, I began spending hours at local tea shops, simply listening. To capture the conversation that takes place in a tea-shop, I started a weekly column in Annapurna Express titled: Tea-Shop Gossipwhich is available online.

What struck me most was the depth of resentment toward traditional political parties, particularly the Nepali Congress, CPN-UML, and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Center). Before that, I had no clear idea that public anger toward these parties had reached such intensity. People were not just disappointed; they were exhausted. The frustration was layered—broken promises, recycled leaders, familiar faces, and the feeling that power circulates within a closed circle.

When the Sept 8–9 protests erupted, I was not surprised by the anger. What shocked me was the scale of destruction. My own office was burned, forcing me to work from home for several days. That moment reminded me that public frustration is not theoretical—it is real.. Sept 8–9 was a mixture of accumulated public anger and destruction carried out by some organized groups. It was a burst of frustration that had been building for years.

Following what many now call the GenZ wave, I deliberately changed my daily routine. I avoided private vehicles, walked more, used public transport, and engaged more directly with ordinary citizens. Friends found it unusual. But I wanted to feel the pulse of the electorate firsthand. Across conversations, one pattern was unmistakable: frustration is at an all-time high. Many voters say they want to support new parties. Yet that does not automatically translate into full trust in any single alternative.

Among college students aged 18–21, I observed something fascinating—a political tug-of-war within families. Parents try to pass down party loyalties; children resist. Traditional alignments are no longer guaranteed. Political parties have sensed this shift. For example, CPN-UML has circulated short videos in which parents attempt to persuade their children to remain loyal to traditional forces. But persuasion today meets skepticism.

One striking sentiment among GenZ voters is this: they want change and new leadership, yet they cannot fully trust those presenting themselves as alternatives. They are equally frustrated by speeches and by what they perceive as evasive responses from new political actors. Their demand is simple—clear answers and accountability.

Over the past few weeks, I have visited several places and closely followed reports from journalist friends across the country. Many of them have spoken to 500 to 700 voters in their respective constituencies. Bound by journalistic codes of conduct, they cannot be explicit in their projections, but their reporting and subtle social media hints suggest an environment increasingly hostile to traditional political parties. Outlets such as Setopati have been relatively more vocal in amplifying public sentiment. Even when some journalists remain restrained, the underlying message is clear: the political landscape feels different this time.

The GenZ voters I interacted with believe change is inevitable—regardless of which party wins. They argue that political survival now depends on reform. Yet they are equally critical of new faces. Transparency and accountability are central concerns. They question bold claims made by emerging leaders and remain wary of personality-driven politics.

Interestingly, many youths appreciated parts of the manifesto of the Nepali Congress, but they remain skeptical about its performance over the past two decades. Their thinking is nuanced. They are neither blindly anti-old nor blindly pro-new.

There is a growing perception that momentum may be building around a single party. Some compare the current mood to the Maoist wave of 2008. Whether that comparison holds true remains to be seen. What is undeniable, however, is that this election feels psychologically different. Still, it is not a one-sided race. Traditional parties retain strong organizational structures, loyal voter bases, and institutional experience. The competition remains open.

Certain issues have deeply influenced voters’ thinking. The Bhutanese refugee scam, the Baluwatar land controversy, and other corruption scandals frequently arise in conversations. People ask: Why were stronger efforts not made to control corruption?

In rural areas, empty homes stand as silent testimony to youth migration. Elderly parents question what forced their children to go abroad. Why have successive governments failed to create opportunities at home? Remittances sustain the national economy, but families demand sustainable domestic employment and a conducive environment for investing the money sent by their loved ones.

People are also concerned about accountability for the Sept 8–9 protests. Many believe those responsible for the killings of 19 students, arson and violence must be held accountable. As a result, some senior leaders and ministers are facing intense scrutiny in their constituencies.

My strongest impression is this: citizens no longer underestimate their own power. They demand tangible results, not lengthy speeches. The culture of treating political elites as untouchable is weakening. This election feels less like a routine democratic exercise and more like a referendum on political culture—a contest between continuity and change.

In the past, senior leaders of the major parties used to spend very little time in their constituencies. This time, however, they spent months in their constituencies and faced very tough and blunt questions from the people. Ordinary citizens are now more empowered and are asking direct questions to these senior leaders: Why haven’t you delivered until now? Why did you make false promises? Why didn’t you return to our constituency after winning the election?

Whether new or old forces prevail, governing will not be easy. Public scrutiny has intensified. Tea-shop conversations are sharper. Youths are more assertive. Families are politically divided. Trust is fragile.

Perhaps that vigilance—more than any party’s victory—is the strongest sign that democracy is alive.

At this point in time, it is impossible to predict which party will win. If what I have sensed and observed represents even a reasonable sample of the broader electorate, the outcome could be significantly different from previous elections. Yet waves of sentiment do not always translate into votes. This time, prediction is particularly difficult because of the range and depth of issues shaping voter behavior. The ballots will reveal the final verdict. Until then, the tea shops will continue to debate—and democracy will continue to breathe.