Submit your Article

The District Administration Office, Parsa, has decided to close all border points along the Nepal-India border line for 72 hours, considering the upcoming House of Representatives (HoR) elections.

Assistant Chief District Officer Binod Kumar Pokhrel stated that all border points connected to India have been closed from Monday midnight to Thursday midnight.

A decision has been made to close the international border points in Parsa, Pokhrel said.  

There is a practice that both countries close their borders for 72 hours during their elections, according to Pokhrel. This decision was taken in view of security sensitivities during the elections, it is said.  

Meanwhile, Assistant Chief District Officer Pokhrel has urged one and all to make the Holi festival which is being marked today harmonious and election–friendly. 

Hooliganisms, forcefully smearing colors on others, destabilizing social harmony by liquor intake and other untoward activities in the public space during the Holi festival are strictly prohibited, he said.

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. 

Nepal’s first general election in 1959 was conducted without any international assistance or foreign observers. The country managed the polls independently, relying solely on domestic institutions for logistics, administration and oversight.

International involvement in Nepal’s elections began to take shape four decades later. A significant turning point came during the 1999 House of Representatives election, when around 100 international observers from the United Kingdom, Denmark, France, Japan, the Netherlands and the United States monitored the voting process. The Asian Network for Free Elections (ANFREL) also deployed observers, marking one of the earliest instances of structured international monitoring in Nepal.

During the same period, the National Democratic Institute (NDI) supported voter education initiatives. Voter awareness booklets and election information materials were prepared and distributed through District Election Offices, and Radio Nepal aired 20 short voter education dramas. A British-supported organization, Election Awareness Campaign, printed 250,000 posters carrying voter awareness messages for the House of Representatives election scheduled for 1999, which was later postponed.

Following the People’s Movement of 2006 and the Comprehensive Peace Agreement between the Seven-Party Alliance and the Maoists, Nepal formally sought United Nations assistance for the peace process and the planned Constituent Assembly elections. In 2008 Constituent Assembly (CA) elections, United Mission to Nepal (UNMIN) set up an election office. UNMIN supported the drafting of election-related laws, preparation of election management plans, voter registration, voter education, political party registration, media and campaign regulation, and training. Initially, 12 advisers were deployed; the mission later expanded to include up to 230 national and international personnel to assist with preparations for the election.

Nepal also received approximately Rs 1.9bn worth of election materials and equipment from various countries and donor agencies. Assistance included heavy printers, laptops, desktop computers, servers, mobile phones, vehicles, digital and video cameras, generators, solar systems, plastic ballot boxes and security seals. Major contributors included China, India, Australia, Denmark and Japan. Support also came from international organizations such as the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), Korea International Cooperation Agency (KOICA) and National Democratic Institute. 

The Constituent Assembly, however, failed to draft a new constitution and was dissolved in 2012.

In 2013,  a second Constituent Assembly election was held and this time too, international assistance continued. A Media Center was established within the Election Commission with the support of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) under its Electoral Support Project (ESP). Japan provided election materials worth approximately JPY 14.9m through a project focused on capacity development and technical assistance. China supplied stationery and polling materials, including pens, markers, staplers, scissors, calculators and stamp pads. India provided 48 vehicles, including Mahindra double-cab pickups, Mahindra Scorpio jeeps and Tata mini trucks, to support logistics.

International monitoring also remained active. Organizations such as The Carter Center and ANFREL observed the polls. Assistance and observation support were also provided by the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) and the Asia Foundation.

The 2017 federal and provincial elections—the first held under the 2015 Constitution—also saw extensive international observation. The Carter Center, ANFREL and the European Union Election Observation Mission deployed observers across the country. UNDP’s Electoral Support Project, funded by the European Union, UKAID, Norway and Denmark, continued to strengthen the Election Commission’s institutional capacity, voter registration systems and operational planning.

In 2022, during the local, provincial and federal elections, international and domestic observation missions again monitored the process. ANFREL observed the polls, while domestic civil society groups such as Democracy Resource Center Nepal—supported by the Asia Foundation—conducted technical observation of electoral preparations, polling and counting. The UNDP’s Electoral Support Project continued providing technical assistance, including support for voter roll management, training and election planning.

International assistance has continued in the lead-up to the 2026 House of Representatives general election. The government of Japan allocated Rs 397.5m from counterpart funds under its Food Assistance Projects to support election management software updates, training of officials and voter education. China provided a grant of $4m to assist with election preparations but there are reports that China has imposed strict conditions for the expenditure of the money.

India has delivered election-related assistance in three tranches in early 2026. The third tranche included more than 270 vehicles, including 50 trucks for the Nepali Army, along with other supplies. The first two tranches, handed over in January 2026, included over 310 vehicles and additional materials. The assistance was formally handed over by the Indian Ambassador to Nepal’s Home Minister in Kathmandu. For the March 5 elections, the Carter Center, Asian Network for Free Elections, International Republican Institute and Multidisciplinary Institute of Training and Learning are observing the elections.

Nearly seven decades on, Nepal’s elections have evolved from a purely domestic exercise to a process regularly supported and monitored by international partners. While the 1959 election was conducted without foreign involvement, international logistical, technical, financial and monitoring support has become a consistent feature of Nepal’s electoral landscape since the late 1990s, particularly following the 2006 peace process and the country’s transition to a federal democratic republic.