Submit your Article

Once regarded as the trailblazer of democracy, the Nepali Congress now faces an existential crisis. With the party lurching toward a further delayed general convention and finding itself adrift in an ideological void, a troubling question has emerged. What is the Congress party actually for in modern Nepal? The current situation is not merely an organizational failure or a temporary leadership crisis but a fundamental breakdown in the coherence, purpose and political relevance of the party. The Congress must urgently undertake a radical ideological clarification or face irreversible decline into historical irrelevance. 

Institutional failure

The most damning indictment of the party is deceptively simple. Since its 14th General Convention in Dec 2021, the party has been required to hold its 15th convention within four years. However, as of Dec 2025, it has failed to conduct this basic organizational function. This failure cannot be taken as a minor scheduling issue but as a major failure of institutional governance and political competence. The Congress leadership fractured between the Deuba-Khadka establishment faction, and the ‘reformist’ bloc of Gagan Thapa, Bishwa Prakash Sharma and Shekhar Koirala has spent months engaged in mutual obstruction and political brinkmanship. The reasons offered are revealing in their inadequacy. “Technical and logistical reasons,” “complications in the distribution of active membership” and “improper serial numbers on membership forms.”

These excuses would be laughable if they were not so pathetic for a party that claims to represent democratic values. Even 54 percent of the elected convention delegates, well exceeding the statutory 40 percent threshold, had already submitted signatures demanding a special convention.

The central committee was legally obligated to call the convention within three months of receiving such a demand. However, the central committee meeting that began in mid-October simply extended indefinitely, with no resolution in sight. The Deuba-Khadka faction openly preferred to postpone the convention until after the general election transparently attempting to extend their own terms (for whatever reasons) and avoid accountability. Up to the point, it is no longer just institutional inefficiency but institutional paralysis. A political party that cannot organize its own internal democratic processes has forfeited the moral authority to claim democratic credentials. The Congress, which once championed the democratic revolution of the country and led the Jana Andolan movements, has become a cautionary tale in the corruption of organizational purpose by factional ambition. 

Ideological incoherence 

The Congress faces a more profound crisis. Ideological incoherence that borders on the farcical. The party constitution officially identifies Congress as a “social democratic” party committed to “democracy and socialism.” However, this declaration clashes with its post-1990 practice and its current political alignments. BP Koirala articulated a clear vision of democratic socialism as a middle path between capitalism and communism. Koirala explicitly rejected “unbridled consumerism” as immoral and opposed exploitation of resources as short-sighted. He believed that “only socialism could guarantee political freedom and equal economic opportunities to the people.” This was not theoretical posturing; it rather reflected a genuine philosophical commitment to combining political democracy with economic justice. 

Nevertheless, after the 1990 democratic restoration, Congress governments systematically embraced neoliberal economic policies that directly contradict these founding principles. The party implemented structural adjustment programs dictated by the World Bank and IMF. State-owned enterprises were privatized. Trade was liberalized. Import restrictions were eliminated. The Industrial Policy of 1992 and subsequent Foreign Direct Investment policies actively promoted private sector dominance. By the 2000s, Congress was overseeing an economy increasingly shaped by finance-led growth, import dependence and widening inequality; developments that marked a departure from the socialist vision. This contradiction might have been tolerable if Congress had at least articulated a coherent new ideology. 

Perhaps Congress could have honestly declared itself a social democrat in the Scandinavian sense supporting capitalism with robust welfare provisions. Or perhaps it could have embraced liberal democracy while accepting market economics. But Congress did neither. It clung verbally to “democratic socialism” while practicing almost liberalism creating a credibility chasm between principle and practice. By 2025, this incoherence reached absurdity. Congress partnered with communist parties—first the Maoists then the CPN-UML—to form coalition governments. The party whose founder rejected communism as an improper path to justice governed alongside self-identified Marxists. The party that privately embraced capitalism after 1990 publicly claims socialist credentials while their communist coalition partners theoretically pursue socialist transformation. 

The finance minister and other key economic policymakers navigate between fundamentally incompatible ideological frameworks with no coherent government economic policy to guide them. This intellectual dishonesty is staggering. How can a party claiming to be a social-democratic partner with communist parties while also being the practical architect of 35 years of almost neoliberal restructuring? How can Congress credibly advocate for any economic vision when its actual practice contradicts its stated ideology, which contradicts its communist coalition partners’ stated ideology? The answer is: it cannot. This is not flexibility or pragmatism. This is ideological bankruptcy masquerading as coalition management.

The rise of alternatives 

Perhaps most alarming for Congress is the emergence of political alternatives that have started to offer clearer ideological positioning. The Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) has now crystallized as a new centrist liberal force that explicitly commits to “a liberal economy with social justice.” RSP leader Rabi Lamichhane and Kathmandu Mayor Balendra Shah have just announced a “Grand Unity” agreement pledging to implement deep reforms and transform Nepal into a “respectable middle-income country within the next decade” through merit-based governance and youth-led renewal. Even though a broad interpretative commentary on this understanding is necessary and on the RSP itself, for now this represents a direct challenge to Congress’s political space, and it has already challenged the Congress with a growing number of its members and even prominent figures choosing RSP as an alternative. 

If voters are seeking a centrist, market-oriented party with democratic credentials, RSP now offers this without the baggage of years of contradictions. If voters are seeking reform and anti-corruption politics, RSP, despite its challenges, projects youth and renewal. Meanwhile, Congress remains trapped in aging factional disputes between Deuba, Koirala and Thapa, with no fresh ideas or new generation breaking through. By this I do not mean to portray that RSP is the one that will replace Nepali Congress ideologically but it may in terms of the voter base reflecting the liberal views. 

In India, the Congress party similarly lost its historic centrist space to the BJP on the right and to regional parties on the left. Nepali Congress faces an equivalent threat. The very political niche Congress once dominated, that is democracy, developmental capitalism, and secular nationalism is being colonized by newer parties that do not carry the baggage of neoliberal failure and communist coalition compromises. 

A party at a dead end? 

Congress has precisely one political lifeline remaining: radical ideological clarification undertaken immediately and with brutal honesty. The party cannot continue claiming to be both capitalist and socialist, both anti-communist and communist allies, both market-liberal and social democratic. Nevertheless, Nepali Congress remains indispensable to the long-term political and economic fabric of the country against the radical newcomers. This moment might even position Congress to lead through another defining crisis of battling the new danger of populism increasingly portrayed by newer parties whose charismatic appeals mask factionalism and untested governance, who are the textbook example of ‘simulacra and hyperreality’. 

Congress must make three not-so-difficult choices. 

Institutional renewal: Congress must conduct its delayed general convention with full transparency and embrace the GenZ-driven demand for new leadership. The party should commit to term limits, merit-based advancement and ideological clarity rather than factional rotation between aging elites. 

Ideological declaration: Congress must publicly acknowledge that post-1990 liberalism either succeeded or failed as a development strategy. If it succeeded, Congress should rebrand as an explicitly market liberal party committed to capitalism with welfare provisions essentially the Indian Congress model embracing “inclusive capitalism.” If it failed, Congress should articulate what economic vision should replace 35 years of liberalization. This honest accounting is a prerequisite to political credibility. 

Coalition coherence: Governing with Marxist-Leninists while trying to implement liberal policies is not pragmatism-it is a political fraud. Either Congress should unite with socialist parties around a genuine social agenda or it should form centrist-liberal coalitions. The current arrangement deceives everyone. 

The clock is running 

The party that led multiple democratic revolutions, that resisted dictatorship, that articulated a vision of democratic socialism suited to Nepali aspirations now risks becoming a historical artifact, a museum piece of failed leadership and ideological cowardice. The window for renewal remains open, but barely. RSP has increasingly captured the initiative for reformminded politics. 

Communist parties command the left. Congress occupies an increasingly narrow and indefensible middle ground. If Congress does not urgently undertake radical ideological reconstruction, conduct genuine democratic renewal and offer voters a coherent vision of Nepali economic future, then the party will not simply lose elections. It will lose its reason for existing. 

The founding generation of the party sacrificed imprisonment, exile and health to establish democracy in Nepal. The current generation owes it to them and to the future to answer honestly. 

What is Congress up for in 2026 and beyond? 

Until that question is answered with clarity, unity and humility, the decline will continue not as a dramatic collapse, but as a slow fade into irrelevance. And that may be the cruellest fate of all: not to be defeated, but to be forgotten leaving the nation ever more vulnerable to the populist chaos.

The growing trend of using social media to attack courts, judges and, to some extent, legal professionals through personal abuse, ridicule and targeted humiliation is deeply troubling. Such conduct corrodes public discourse, undermines respect for institutions and risks normalizing intimidation as a form of expression. There is no justification for criminal, obscene or socially degrading speech aimed at individuals discharging constitutional responsibilities. This phenomenon deserves clear condemnation.

Yet condemning toxic expressions alone is not enough. A more uncomfortable but necessary question must also be asked: has the failure to openly and timely address the distortions, inconsistencies and internal weaknesses within the judiciary and the legal profession itself created fertile ground for this outburst of resentment on social media?

For years, concerns about the judiciary have circulated quietly—sometimes in academic circles, sometimes in private conversations among lawyers, journalists and citizens. These concerns range from opaque and non-transparent appointments to questions about intellectual rigor, professional competence, ethical consistency and accountability of some judges and legal actors. There are also deeper anxieties about institutional culture: delays in justice, selective urgency, perceived influence of power and proximity, and an erosion of public confidence in fairness. When such issues are repeatedly brushed aside, minimized  or metaphorically swept under the carpet, frustration does not disappear—it mutates.

Social media, with all its flaws, has become the outlet for that mutation.

It is important to be clear: abuse is not critique. Personal attacks are not reform. Threats and insults do not strengthen democracy. But neither does enforced silence. When legitimate debate about institutional shortcomings is discouraged, delegitimized or branded as contempt, the space for reasoned criticism shrinks. What rushes in to fill that vacuum is often anger—raw, unstructured, and destructive.

This is not unique to the judiciary, nor to Nepal. Across democracies, institutions that resist introspection tend to lose moral authority. Respect cannot be demanded indefinitely; it must be renewed through performance, integrity and openness to scrutiny. The judiciary, precisely because it wields immense power over liberty, property and rights, must be held to the highest standards—not only by law, but by public expectation.

A mature democracy distinguishes between malicious attacks and principled criticism. It protects judges from intimidation while allowing citizens to question systems, decisions and processes. It understands that reverence without accountability breeds stagnation, while criticism without responsibility breeds chaos. The challenge lies in holding both truths at once.

Continuous review, honest self-critique and institutional reform are not threats to judicial independence; they are its foundations. A judiciary that welcomes evaluation—of appointment procedures, training standards, ethical enforcement and transparency—signals confidence, not weakness. Conversely, one that appears defensive or closed risks alienating the very public whose trust it requires to function.

Legal professionals, too, must look inward. The bar is not merely a defender of the bench; it is a bridge between law and society. When lawyers dismiss public concerns outright or circle wagons without addressing substance, they inadvertently deepen the credibility gap. Reform is not betrayal; it is responsibility.

Social media excesses must be checked through law, norms and collective ethics. But reform cannot begin with censorship alone. It must begin with acknowledgement: that there are unresolved issues within the justice system, that some criticisms—when stripped of their abusive packaging—point to real grievances, and that postponing reform only amplifies discontent.

A capable, dignified and trustworthy judiciary does not emerge from denial. It takes shape through constant reflection, principled criticism, and a willingness to correct course. If we truly seek to restore respect for the courts, the answer lies not in silencing voices, but in strengthening institutions—so that criticism becomes measured, trust becomes earned and justice becomes visibly, consistently fair.

Only through sustained review, reform and openness can an ignored ideal be transformed into a living, credible justice system—one that commands respect not by fear or distance, but by integrity and performance.

In a technology dominated global system, when the interests of one country overlap with those of others, conflict rises and crises emerge. The crises are entangled with various sectors of state affairs such as politics, technology, economy and social development. Crises emerge not only at the global level but also at the national level. In many cases, a small event can trigger painful consequences. In a democratic system, state affairs are delicate in nature as they are meticulously linked with people’s aspirations. If these aspirations are not fulfilled, disruptions escalate rapidly. Prior to the 1990s, the world was mainly divided along ideological lines—capitalism and communism, steered respectively by the USA and the then Soviet Union.

In the present day of the 21st century, situations have dramatically changed, as developed countries are locked in unhealthy geopolitical competition to increase and expand their traditional means of state power. The seen and unseen rivalry has no longer focused on strengthening their military power alone, rather they have concentrated their entire activities on economic dominance influencing and coercing others by fair means or foul. Thus, being a consequence of global interconnectivity, the polycrisis neologism has captured the present-day state affairs.

Vulnerabilities

Nepali GenZ (Nava Pusta) protests of Sept 2025 were largely based on non-political ideologies in nature. The protests were primarily rooted in structural economic grievances, antediluvian working style of established political parties and poor service delivery of the government.

A weak national economy, heavy dependence on remittances and foreign loans, ineffective governance, poor implementation of public policy and frequent changes in federal and provincial governments resulted in challenges of unemployment, inflation, corruption and a trust deficit in political parties, fueled widespread dissatisfaction among the Nava Pusta.

The collapse of the entire federal government within just two days of Nava Pusta’s protests was an unprecedented incident in the political history of Nepal. However, the destruction of government physical infrastructures, and public and private property through arson by anti-national elements (who were not genuine members of GenZ) cannot be condoned and pardoned.

The changes that took place after the Nava Pusta movement shuddered the foundations of established political parties were significant. The  international media labeled the protests as a ‘color revolution’. Whether this was truly a ‘color revolution’ or simply GenZ-led protests remains a matter of academic discourse. The former Home Minister’s statement given before the High Level Investigation Commission clearly points to direct influence of foreign elements in the peaceful GenZ protests. But the wave created by these protests has had a long-lasting tremor. The political instability in a geopolitically sensitive country has created a space for different actors who have hidden agendas to exploit Nepali soil and politics for their benefits, and is a serious threat to national security.

At this point of critical juncture, a single issue can spiral into a polycrisis. It can trigger the erosion of public trust in democratic institutions, leading to ineffective crisis response and governance paralysis. Security, in such a polycrisis situation often becomes reactive rather than strategically active. Nepal’s security needs to be active and agile to ensure that the Nepali people are competent enough to handle their internal challenges independently. The Nepali people and leadership alike must act accordingly so that no external power gains a foothold in the country’s strategic decision-making processes—directly or indirectly.

To demonstrate one’s capability to manage internal issues independently, requires the application of strong security measures backed by accurate information, use of advanced technology, coordinated strategic planning and action, and high-morale security personnel. The security organizations must have the ability to anticipate the future, not just respond to it. Experienced and highly skilled security officers are crisis managers, risk analysts, strategic communicators, and protectors of national interests and sovereignty. They are not merely the persons in uniforms rather they are the backbone of state security and stability.

Driving seat

Citizens are the first to bear the effects of polycrisis. The interwoven challenges in the  economy, society and governance can escalate into a full-blown crisis at any time that requires more vigilance in national affairs.

Sometimes, voices appear in the media alleging that the country—X has played a foul game by intervening in Nepal, provoking public agitation against the government and fueling conflict among the castes and social class. Diplomatically, it is not wise to allege Country X or Y, while ignoring the need to analyze and address domestic causes and their impact in society. Instead of pointing fingers at others, the government, political parties and concerned authorities should mend flawed policies and change outmoded mind-sets, and ensure good governance for the well-being of citizens and the nation at large.

It is natural for Country X or Y to take all necessary steps to safeguard their national interests. If they believe that by destabilizing a weaker country serves their purpose, they leave no stone unturned to fish in troubled waters. This is a routine work of  global diplomacy.

Ultimately, it is the major responsibility of Nepali political parties who hold the reins of state governance to keep their own house in order. They must foster harmonious relations within Nepali society and among common citizens, keeping in mind the age-old saying—Anekata Ma Ekata, Nepali Samaja Ko Biseshata (Unity in Diversity is the defining characteristic of Nepali Society).

Sustained economic development, a secure civil society, transparent practices, good governance, effective security organizations, and justice for all will help to keep foreign elements at bay. When the entire society upholds a value-based system rooted in patriotism and ethics no external force dares to rock the boat or destabilize the nation.

Many Nepalis have welcomed the alliance between Balen Shah and Rabi Lamichhane as a sign of hope ahead of the upcoming election. For supporters, this partnership represents a break from failed politics and a promise of economic prosperity. In a country where economic development has long dominated political speeches, such optimism is understandable. Yet history urges caution. For decades, Nepali political leaders have placed economic growth at the center of their agendas while repeatedly failing to deliver lasting results. After the political transformation of the 1990s, the Nepali Congress introduced major economic reforms that initially showed promise. 

However, these gains were undermined by corruption, internal power struggles and a deep leadership crisis. Democracy cannot function without transparency, accountability and shared ownership of leadership—principles the party ultimately failed to uphold.

The Nepal Communist Party performed no better. Instead of acting as a constructive and intellectually vibrant opposition, it focused on destabilizing the government through obstruction and political chaos. This failure of leadership and vision helped create the conditions for the Maoist insurgency, which pushed Nepal back by an entire generation in both education and economic development. The insurgency led to another historic transformation: the end of the Shah dynasty and the establishment of a federal republic. While this shift reshaped the state, it did not bring political stability or economic security. Years later, Nepal remains politically fragile, with no clear path toward sustained prosperity.

It is within this environment of frustration that Shah and Lamichhane have gained popularity. Shah presents himself as a voice of a new generation, while Lamichhane entered politics as a media-driven populist figure. Their alliance challenges traditional parties that many citizens view as corrupt and ineffective. However, rejecting the old guard is not the same as offering a viable alternative. To date, the alliance has failed to present a serious, long-term economic plan. Instead, it relies on emotional appeals, vague promises and blaming existing political institutions for Nepal’s failures. Populist energy may mobilize voters, but without concrete policies and realistic strategies, it risks repeating the same cycle of disappointment.

Nepal does not suffer from a shortage of political slogans or self-proclaimed saviors. What it lacks is leadership grounded in responsibility, institutional respect and a credible economic vision. If new political forces hope to earn lasting public trust, they must move beyond protest politics and offer solutions that are practical, inclusive and sustainable. Without this shift, today’s hope may become tomorrow’s regret.

I offer my best wishes to the new alliance and would genuinely welcome being proven wrong. Still, I remain doubtful that it can fulfill the high expectations of the Nepali people. One major concern is the lack of clarity and consistency in its economic vision. The alliance appears to hold conflicting economic ideas, leaving voters uncertain about the policies it intends to pursue. This confusion is reflected in the silence and shifting positions of key figures. For example, Swarnim Wagle, a respected political leader and economist who has long advocated a market-based economy, has recently aligned himself with populist socialist rhetoric. In today’s global system, which largely operates on capital-driven economic principles, Nepal, already a poor and fragile economy, cannot afford ideological ambiguity. Attempting to balance socialism and market economics simultaneously is like standing with one foot in each boat; it leads nowhere. Without a clear economic direction, meaningful development is unlikely.

Even more troubling is the absence of a clear political or economic agenda from Shah himself. So far, the public has heard little about his long-term policy vision. This silence is risky. Leadership without clarity creates uncertainty, inconsistency and ultimately public disappointment.

The Rabi–Balen alliance also appears to be driven largely by political elites. It has failed to meaningfully include women, Dalits, and working- or middle-class citizens in its leadership and campaign strategy. A closer look at its top figures shows that most come from privileged economic, academic and social backgrounds. Decision-making remains highly centralized, with little attention given to grassroots leadership. In a country as diverse as Nepal, shaped by geography, caste, ethnicity and religion, inclusion is not optional; it is essential. By sidelining this principle and focusing primarily on power acquisition, the alliance risks deepening existing social divisions. Even if it were to secure a majority, elite-driven populism is unlikely to deliver lasting peace or prosperity.

Another serious concern is the alliance’s apparent lack of respect for democratic institutions. While it is true that many Nepali institutions are inefficient and in need of reform, dismissing or attacking them outright is dangerous. Institutions are not merely part of the problem; they are also part of the solution. Shah has repeatedly challenged federal government agencies through confrontational rhetoric and political theatrics. As for Lamichhane, he entered politics by attacking institutions and political actors, often using polarizing narratives. When political leaders openly undermine institutions, democratic foundations weaken further. Many scholars agree that Nepal’s democracy has become fragile largely because of institutional decay, not despite it.

Despite these concerns, there remains a narrow space for cautious optimism. Critics argue that this alliance poses a serious challenge to established political parties, forcing them to reflect, reform and perform better. It has also succeeded in mobilizing young people and drawing them into political campaigns. Youth engagement, if channeled responsibly, can generate peaceful momentum for change and strengthen democratic competition.

If the alliance achieves a significant electoral victory, it may offer Nepal a valuable test case, an opportunity to evaluate new political actors while pushing traditional parties to prepare more seriously for the future. However, meaningful progress will not come from quick fixes or political shortcuts. Scholars consistently remind us that sustainable change is slow, deliberate, and institutionally grounded.

Nepal’s future depends on whether its political actors, old and new, can move beyond personal ambition and ideological confusion to build a shared vision. What the country truly needs is an ideological consensus and a long-term economic plan capable of delivering real reform. Without this, any alliance, no matter how popular, risks becoming just another chapter in Nepal’s long history of unmet promises.

The author is a PhD student in Public and International Affairs at Virginia Tech. Views are personal