Submit your Article

Naturally, Nepal is beautiful, geographically Nepal is landlocked and politically Nepal is always unstable. But after the March 5 election, the term unstable will be stable—that’s our hope—with a new political party set to form the government.  Nepal has just seen a political earthquake. In the recent election, the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), led by Balendra (Balen) Shah, has secured a historic majority in the federal parliament, with around 182 seats out of 275. The so‑called big parties of yesterday have been pushed far behind. Many of their senior leaders have lost. Only former Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal has managed to return to parliament from Rukum East, while other familiar famous faces have disappeared from the front line. This result is not a small change; it is a clear message from the people that they were tired of the old way of politics and new one to be corrected in present and future with the hope not to be repeated from this wave too.

Nepal has long struggled with hung parliaments, unstable governance, and never-ending positional negotiations. The people’s lives remained unchanged despite the government’s repeated changes in leadership. Rather than being influenced by the general welfare, policy decisions were frequently influenced by personal interests, political agreements, and corruption. Like in the past, basic government services remained cumbersome, slow, and rude. People believed that even basic tasks required bribes or political ties. Due to their inability to obtain good services, health care, or education at home, young people from villages and small towns continued to migrate to cities and other nations. A ‘tsunami of votes’ was made possible by this lingering discontent.

Why did this tsunami of votes come for RSP and Balen Shah? There are several reasons. First, young people, especially the GenZ generation, had already shown their anger through protests and social media campaigns against corruption, nepotism, and the lifestyle of the political elite. They were tired of seeing leaders’ children enjoying luxury while ordinary youth stood in queues for passports and labor permits. Second, Balen presented itself as a clean, new force with a strong anti‑corruption message and a modern style of communication. Balen Shah’s own image as an engineer, rapper, and independent thinker who had already shaken the old parties in Kathmandu’s mayoral politics gave people hope that a different kind of leadership is possible.

Third, voters punished the old parties because they failed to provide stable and honest governance after the federal republic was established. Leaders kept making coalitions only to save their chairs, not to serve the people. They talked about socialism and equality, but the gap between their words and their actions became too big. In this election, people decided to clean the field. This is not just a victory for one party; it is a warning that any party can be thrown out if it betrays public trust.

Now, with a clear majority, the biggest hope is political stability. For the first time in many years, one party has enough seats to form a government without being hostage to small coalition partners. This creates an opportunity and a big responsibility. The question is: what should this new government do first, so that people feel their vote was not wasted?

The first duty of the new government is to restore ‘trust’. Trust will not come from speeches; it will come from concrete actions that people can see and feel in daily life. The government’s first decisions should focus on cleaning the system and improving basic services. A strong first move could be to announce a national “Good Governance and Service Reform Plan” with clear, time‑bound targets. For example, the government can declare that key services such as citizenship, social security, passports, driving licenses, land registration and business registration must be delivered within a fixed number of days, through a simple process, with transparent fees. There should not be rules office and employee wise.

To make this real, there should be a public “Revised Service Charter” in every office, and a system for citizens to complain easily if offices delay work or demands. Complaints should go to an independent mechanism that can take action quickly on responsible officials. If people see that the government seriously protects them against harassment in offices, their hope will grow.

The second urgent duty is to fight against growing corruption at all levels in political leadership, civil service, and the private sector. Corruption has become like cancer in Nepal. To control it, the new government can follow some guiding steps:

• Establish the mechanism of investigating assets of public holding 
• Give real independence, resources, and technology to anti‑corruption bodies so they can investigate big cases without political pressure 
• Protect whistle‑blowers who expose corruption in government offices, public enterprises, or private companies doing public work 
• Introduce e‑procurement and open data for all major contracts, so that the public and media can see who is getting which contract, at what price, and with what results
• Revise government office and employee numbers and provide plenty of tasks to the employee
• Enforce strict punishment for proven corruption, even if the person belongs to the ruling party

Importantly, the new government must apply the same standard to its own members. If RSP protects corrupt people inside its own ranks, the moral authority of this “change” will collapse. People voted for RSP to break the old culture, not to repeat it with new faces.

The third big responsibility is to make the state work for the whole country, not just for the center and own area. People in rural hills, Madhes plains, and remote areas have suffered from poor infrastructure of schools, poor health posts, bad roads, and lack of safe drinking water. Many of them feel that the state only remembers them during elections. The new government must show that it respects every citizen equally. Early budgets should prioritise basic services in the poorest and most neglected areas. Local governments should receive predictable funding and technical support, with clear rules and monitoring, so that funds are not misused on the way.

The government must also speak clearly about inclusion. Nepal is home to diverse communities—Dalit, indigenous, Madhesi, Muslim, Tharu, and others—who still face discrimination and barriers. For them, good governance means being able to enter an office without humiliation, getting justice from police and courts, and seeing people like themselves represented in state institutions. The new leadership should enforce laws against caste and gender discrimination, improve representation in public service, and design targeted programmes for those at the bottom.

Another major challenge is to give young people a reason to stay here. Before this election, unemployment, low wages, and frustration with the system pushed thousands of youths to go abroad every day. If nothing changes, the country will lose its energy and future. The new government must make youth employment a top priority. This can include transparent and fair public service exams, support for small and medium enterprises, skills training linked with technology and green jobs, and encouragement for innovation and start‑ups. At the same time, the government must clean up existing recruitment processes where cheating and favoritism have damaged trust.

To move toward a “Good Governance Country”, the change must be both structural and cultural. Structurally, laws, rules, and institutions have to be improved. Culturally, habits of power, ego, and misuse must be challenged. Political leaders should set an example by living simply, avoiding unnecessary luxury at public cost, and being reachable to citizens. Parliamentary committees should actually question ministers and review policies, not just act as rubber stamps. The media and civil society should be free to criticize without fear.

The first-ever decisions of this new government will be remembered. If they touch the everyday pain of citizens’ corruption, delay, disrespect, unemployment, reducing cost for representatives and government officials, poor service people will feel that a new era has truly begun. If those first decisions are only about positions, protocol, and party interests, people will quickly feel cheated again. The “tsunami of votes” that lifted RSP and Balen to power can, in future, sweep it away too.

Nepal now stands at a crossroads. The old parties have been taught a hard lesson by the people. The party has been given a historic chance. Stability will come not just from numbers in parliament, but from honesty in action. If this government can be brave, humble, and consistent, Nepal can slowly move from a culture of corruption and chaos to a culture of service and dignity. The people have done their part. Now it is the government’s turn to show this time, change is real. And we will feel we are rich in every aspect, where we were always poor. We are ready to wait for some time, understanding that deep reform cannot happen in one single day. But we are also watching carefully. The early days and the first decisions will be remembered for many years, either as the moment when Nepal finally started to respect its citizens or as one more missed opportunity.

Nepal has been captivated by cautious optimism following the electoral victory of Balendra Shah and the RSP, instilling a renewed sense of possibility in governance and the broader polity. However, this moment is a critical juncture: ensuring that this new era of alternative politics doesn’t make the same mistakes as the past—as governance is ultimately guided by the policies this upcoming government chooses to pursue.

RSP’s political campaign concentrated heavily on governance—drawing on citizen experiences with administrative staff, lapses in policy implementation, or overall vacuous policymaking. In the past, policy debates have centered around observable relationships—for example, how expedited transportation networks will lead to rapid economic growth. It’s understandable how this is appealing, we’re hardwired to identifying developed cities with clean and wide roads. However, places with pre-existing growth trends consistently attract better infrastructure, and as a result—better developed road networks. This ambiguity in causality is rarely acknowledged as we’ve stopped at observational correlation to apply a temporary band-aid—disregarding underlying issues. 

This isn’t restricted to just road networks—policy debates have consistently centered around visible relationships—patterns that appear obvious but aren’t structurally understood. In most cases, cause and effect move both ways—we can’t isolate road networks from economic activity, nor the other way around. This ambiguity is further complicated by other underlying factors—affecting both transportation and economic networks. This form of misidentified causality ultimately fails to address policy targets and might even cause unintended negative externalities. This misidentification is not strictly an individual or political problem at the core—it’s simply about adjusting our approach to policymaking. We need to be able to establish clear causality in complex systems where observable relationships are not accounting for endogenous dynamics underneath. This can be done if policymaking is guided by thorough analysis: comparing regions with or without the policy, testing policies through randomized controlled trials (RCTs) before implementing broad scale reform and quantitatively tracking variance across implementation contexts. This will require recalibrating usual policymaking but will provide much higher returns on government effort and expenditure—resulting in effective outcomes and avoiding unintended harms.

This recalibrated policymaking can come into effect with our concerns over low exports—generally attributed to weak governance institutions or an unstable oversight mechanism. However, this relationship could very well run in the opposite direction—successful exporting industries or business communities could have instead led to the development of strong institutions and increased oversight to guarantee quality. Policymakers are challenged to distinguish between these explanations. Here is where government policies need to avoid blanket approaches and check for sectoral variation, difference-in-differences with policies already in place, and natural quasi-experimental variation with untreated regions. The results will allow policymakers to understand what actually drives exports, avoid allocating resources to unfocused reforms, and focus on interventions that actually improve export performance. 

This strategy needs to expand well beyond export policy—observable outcomes in society are a result of broader equilibria shaped by interacting forces, and bad policy has often reinforced these underlying equilibria. We have consistently chased after symptoms instead of addressing root causes—what we observe are outcomes, not explanations. This political moment provides us with an opportunity to change this approach—a critical juncture as to how we decide to move forward.

The RSP has made efficient governance and expert policymaking a core electoral tenet—raising both opportunity and expectations from these new political actors. Our policies have largely been concentrated around observable relationships and unclear causality—an issue that isn’t fixed just by better policy design, but rather by a better understanding of what drives outcomes. The success of this electoral shift will depend not just on new policies, but rather on how carefully the outcomes of these new policies are understood. 

Nepal’s educational system has undergone a series of reforms, yet for many, the transformation remains incomplete. Today’s youth are not pursuing education merely to secure certificates; they are seeking skills, opportunities, and a viable future. However, they remain tethered to a system heavily focused on traditional methods that limit their true potential.

Whether in schools or colleges, our system has traditionally prioritized textbooks, examinations, and marks. Students often rely on rote memorization to pass, while essential skills, such as critical thinking, problem-solving, creativity, technological literacy, and entrepreneurship, are neglected. This mismatch has produced a generation of graduates who find themselves ill-equipped for the demands of the modern workforce.

From my experience as a co-founder of EV Education, I have seen this firsthand. Having reached over 10,000 students across 100 schools and communities in Nepal, I’ve observed an immense enthusiasm for technology, robotics, coding, and STEAM-based learning. The passion is there, but the infrastructure is not. Students rarely get the chance to apply theoretical knowledge to real-world problems.

A significant disconnect exists between education and employment. Many Nepali students feel directionless after graduation. If our system prioritized innovation and skill development, students wouldn’t feel forced to look abroad, not just for economic survival, but for the chance to make a meaningful impact.

In this digital age, integrating technology into the classroom is no longer optional; it is a necessity. Yet, tech adoption remains low in many regions. To bridge this gap, we must invest in modern teaching methodologies and empower teachers, who serve as the primary catalysts for systemic change. Furthermore, it is essential to include youth in policy-making to ensure that education remains relevant to their lived realities and the evolving demands of the modern world.

A sensitive but vital issue is the role of student political organizations. Educational institutions should be sanctuaries for equal opportunity. Unfortunately, political activities often disrupt academic programs and compromise the fairness of the learning environment. To foster true growth, schools and colleges must prioritize knowledge development and innovation over partisan politics.

Nepal must pivot from a degree-based to a skill-based education model. By fostering entrepreneurship and research from the school level, we can transform students into job creators rather than just job seekers. This shift is the only way to stem the massive outflow of our nation’s most valuable resource: its young, skilled workforce.

The journey toward a modern education system in Nepal has begun, but we are far from the finish line. Progress requires a collaborative effort between the government, educators, parents, and the youth themselves. Education is not just about passing an exam, it is about building a future.

The time for change is now. By embracing technology, practical skills, and the voices of young people, Nepal can move from an unfinished educational experiment to a complete, thriving journey.

The ‘One Man Army’ of the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), Balendra ‘Balen’ Shah, has breathed new life and energy into both the party and its chairman, Rabi Lamichhane. The results and the popular vote in the March 5 election have once again proven the power of this ‘magical’ figure. While his popularity in Kathmandu was well-known—evidenced by the massive crowds that gathered whenever he appeared—few could have speculated that the ‘Balen craze’ would sweep the entire nation. By leaving traditional parties in a state of political turmoil, his popularity has fundamentally altered the political landscape and the status of the RSP.

​The bitter truth is that before Balen’s formal alignment with the RSP, the party’s standing under Rabi Lamichhane was precarious. Critics claimed the RSP was facing its darkest hour. Lamichhane’s alleged involvement in cooperative fraud, money laundering, and other legal issues had pushed the party onto the defensive. Even during the GenZ movement, the RSP chair was held in Nakhu prison, with several cases registered against him in various district courts. Despite these hurdles, RSP cadres and leaders leveraged the momentum of the GenZ movement to help Lamichhane secure his release. Following his exit from jail, Lamichhane and his supporters hoped the youth movement would propel him to the Prime Minister’s office. Surprisingly, leading GenZ activists began criticizing his actions on social media, even starting trends against him. Amidst this friction, high-profile leaders Sumana Shrestha and Santosh Pariyar left the party, dealing a significant setback.

​However, the tide turned suddenly. Sudan Gurung emerged to unite Balen, the RSP, and other forces. This strategic move revitalized the party and successfully captured public sentiment. Balen became the center of attraction; his ‘face value’ alone significantly enhanced the party’s ability to garner votes.
​The election results proved the power of this alliance. Despite political fluctuations, the RSP led by Lamichhane secured nearly a two-thirds majority. While journalists and analysts had predicted RSP gains due to the GenZ movement and the negligence of old parties, the sheer scale of the landslide victory was unexpected. Even RSP leaders were surprised by the outcome. Beyond the victory itself, several crucial factors shifted the electoral scenario and the public’s mentality toward traditional parties.

​The primary factor behind the shift was undoubtedly Balen. The public’s trust in him is near-total. While some argue he hasn’t yet achieved results that match the party’s current standing, one cannot deny that Balen is the ‘Midas’ of Nepali politics. His charm and aura prove he is a man of the masses. His recent political campaigns silenced those who questioned his fame; everywhere he went, massive crowds gathered just to catch a glimpse of him. Human chains lined the roads to greet him, a spectacle that directly translated into votes for the ‘Bell’ (the RSP electoral symbol).

Another key driver was Balen’s strategic alliance with the RSP. Although Balen presents as an individual, he is backed by a powerful network of GenZ activists, celebrities, content creators, and influential social media groups like Routine of Nepal band (RONB) and Men’s Room Reloaded (MRR). The names ‘Balen’ and ‘Ganti’ (the Bell) became synonymous. Even citizens not yet eligible to vote were swept up in the fervor. During the election, the common refrain was simply, ‘Vote for the Bell’. Voters often prioritized the symbol and Balen’s endorsement over the actual quality of individual candidates. Viral social media clips even showed voters outside Jhapa-5 claiming they ‘voted for Balen and the Bell’, cementing his role as the architect of this victory.

Furthermore, the RSP’s tactical move to project Balen as the upcoming Prime Minister played a significant role in capturing the public’s desire for youthful leadership. Had the RSP proposed any name other than Balen for the premiership, the strategy likely would have failed. Conversely, the repetitive rhetoric and perceived failures of veteran leaders paved the way for this ‘Balen and Bell’ victory. The election even transformed the Madhes region—traditionally a stronghold for regional Madhes-based parties. In a stunning shift, the RSP secured 30 out of 32 seats in the region. This was largely due to Balen’s influence; the Madhesi community sought a representative who could lead the government, and the RSP’s move to elevate a figure with Madheshi roots resonated deeply.

Despite this unbelievable victory, the RSP must remain alert. To maintain this favor, they must address public needs and navigate complex geopolitics. Balen and the RSP leadership must realize that this mandate is a cry for change from a public fed up with traditional politics. This is a golden opportunity for Balen and the RSP to succeed where old leaders failed—specifically in governance, economic development, and loyalty to the people. They must prioritize equality, equity, and social emancipation. If they fail, the Nepali electorate has shown time and again that they are not afraid to change their leaders once more.