Submit your Article

The Election Commission on Monday opened the Office of Election Officer for the proportional representation (PR) electoral system for the House of Representatives (HoR) elections slated for March 5. 

The Office is established at the EC premises in the federal capital.

Acting Chief Election Commissioner Ram Prasad Bhandari inaugurated the Office, EC's Spokesperson Narayan Prasad Bhattarai said.  

With the opening of the Office for the proportional representation electoral system, EC Secretary Mahadev Pantha has assumed the responsibility as the Election Officer for the PR system, while Joint Secretary Yagya Prasad Bhattarai is named as the Assistant Election Officer. 

A total of 41 staff members have been deployed to manage the PR election.

Under existing law, the 275 members of the House of Representatives are elected through two systems: direct election and proportional representation. 

Of these, 165 members are elected directly, while the remaining 110 are nominated through the PR system. For the direct (first-past-the-post) electoral system, the program for filing nominations at the respective election officers' offices is scheduled for January 20.

On the occasion, Acting Chief Election Commissioner Bhandari expressed confidence that establishment of the Office for the PR system will facilitate the process for the stakeholders. 

Bhandari mentioned that representatives will be selected based on ethnic, geographic, and gender categories through a formula-based method with support from the National Statistics Office (NSO), which will be trusted from all sides.

Meanwhile, Finance Minister Rameshwor Prasad Khanal and Minister for Law Anil Kumar Sinha held discussions with the Acting Chief Election Commissioner and other commissioners at the EC regarding the polls preparations. 

The discussions focused on the support required from the government to ensure the elections in a free and fair manner. 

Minister Khanal also expressed commitment to ensure the required budget for the EC to hold the polls.

As the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist–Leninist)—CPN-UML—the largest communist party in the country, prepares for its 11th general convention from Dec 12–14 in Bhaktapur (inauguration) and Kathmandu (closed session),  the contest for leadership has informally opened. Party President and former Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli has publicly encouraged leaders and cadres to participate freely in the democratic process—either through election or consensus. In doing so, he has set the tone for an open and fair competitive exercise within the party. Emerging dynamics indicate that Oli will once again contest for the top post, while senior Vice-president Ishwor Pokhrel will challenge him with a team of leaders aligned to him. It's not clear, but both sides might prepare a list of office-bearers for internal context.  

This article argues that the UML needs KP Sharma Oli at its helm once again. More importantly, Nepal requires a leader of his stature, geopolitical understanding and decisiveness at a time of shifting domestic and global politics. In this very critical juncture of our history, Nepal needs a strong leader, who can stand with national aspirations rather than divided aspirations deliberately provoked by some external powers. 

Four interconnected reasons support this conclusion: his lifelong resilience against adversities, his uncompromising defense of sovereignty, his ability to pilot Nepal’s complex geopolitical environment and his articulation of national dignity rooted in civilizational confidence. 

Oli’s political life is a testament to resilience. From 14 years in detention during the Panchayat period to steering factional fragmentation within the party, Oli’s journey has consistently demonstrated an extraordinary ability to rise above adversities. He has never surrendered in the face of internal or external pressures. When confronted with politically-motivated turmoil, populist mobs or orchestrated campaigns, he has chosen rational decision-making over emotional impulses. This capacity to take difficult decisions—often during moments of national uncertainty—has distinguished him as a leader with rare political courage. His premierships, particularly in the aftermath of the 2015 earthquake and constitutional tensions, demonstrated that leadership requires willingness to confront crises with clarity rather than retreat under pressure. The organizational challenges within the unified communist party (NCP), formed by merging the UML and the Pushpa Kamal Dahal-led Maoist party, reflected how Oli had been able to hold the party together and rebuild its national outreach despite systematic efforts to weaken it. His leadership restored the UML’s internal coherence after the 2021 split, and today the party remains the most organized political force in Nepal, largely because of his strategic patience and crisis management. It is to remind you all that the UML is the largest party of the country in terms of proportional representation.  

A second and perhaps more defining attribute of Oli’s leadership is his unwavering commitment to safeguarding Nepal’s sovereignty and national interest. Throughout his political career—whether in the government or the opposition—he has maintained a consistent stance on issues related to territorial integrity and independent foreign policy. His approach to foreign policy has always been issue-based rather than actor-based. Contrary to claims that he has sometimes tilted toward one neighbour or the other, Oli has engaged India and China based on the merits of specific issues rather than geopolitical alignments. Because a statesman, who focuses on issues, will appear to lean north on some occasions and south on others, his diplomacy has occasionally been misunderstood. Yet, the underlying principle has never changed: every decision must serve Nepal’s long-term national interest.

Several examples clearly illustrate this posture. The 2016 Transport Transit Agreement with China was not signed against any neighbor, it was an assertion of Nepal’s sovereign right to diversify its transit routes. The new map was not an attempt to escalate tensions but a constitutional and historical assertion of Nepal's claims. Before the GenZ movement that toppled him, both sides had been preparing for Oli's India visit with plans to sign some major agreements. Over the last decade, PM Oli and his Indian counterpart Modi had held several sideline meetings at international forums.    

Oli’s support for the Belt and Road Initiative implementation agreement was not a geopolitical gesture but an economic one—an effort to bring Chinese investment into Nepal’s infrastructure, energy and connectivity sectors. His support for the MCC Compact with the United States was guided not by external influence, but by the program’s potential to strengthen Nepal’s electricity transmission and transport infrastructure. Throughout these decisions, one principle has remained constant: he refuses to allow ideological confusion or geopolitical fear to derail development.

At a time when Nepal’s geopolitical landscape is becoming increasingly complex, this clarity of foreign policy vision becomes even more crucial. The United States has expanded its strategic footprint in the Asia-Pacific, and global power shifts are creating both challenges and opportunities for relatively smaller states. Nepal needs a leader who can navigate this environment with balance, confidence and strategic foresight. Oli’s diplomatic conduct has shown an ability to maintain equi-proximity, resist strategic alignment pressures, maximize economic gains and avoid entanglement in military or security coalitions. Even during periods of misunderstanding with India, he kept diplomatic space open and maintained serious engagement. While deepening cooperation with China, he preserved Nepal’s independent foreign policy and avoided commitments that would compromise sovereignty. This pragmatic, confident, and non-aligned approach is central to Nepal’s stability in the coming decade.

Another distinctive quality that sets Oli apart is his ability to articulate national dignity with conviction. In the contemporary political sphere, few leaders speak about Nepal’s civilizational heritage, cultural depth and historical identity with such clarity. Oli consistently highlights Nepal’s philosophical roots in Vedic and Buddhist traditions, presenting the country not as a peripheral actor but as a nation with its own intellectual and historical strengths. His famous assertion—“Countries may be big or small, but sovereignty is equal”—captures not only Nepal’s diplomatic stance but also its psychological confidence. This articulation matters in international diplomacy, where perception shapes engagement. Both India and China have respected Nepal’s sovereign positions even during sensitive times. His ability to communicate Nepal’s dignity to the world has created a diplomatic environment in which Nepal’s voice is heard, not dismissed.

As the UML prepares to choose its direction for the next five years, the stakes are far larger than a party presidency. The election will influence how the party positions itself in national politics and how Nepal steers itself through a transforming global environment. Oli’s leadership is vital not only for organizational coherence but also for national stability. 

Oli is more than just a party leader seeking another term. For UML, he represents organizational discipline and clarity of direction. For Nepal, he represents a necessary political force capable of steering the country through a time of complexity. At this critical moment, KP Sharma Oli is not simply a candidate—he is a national need. No other leader of the party can challenge him. The best for the party is to elect the leadership unanimously. If they compete, they mentally should prepare for the future political course.

The Election Commission has allocated the election symbols to the political parties that have registered with it for the House of Representatives (HoR) elections slated for March 5.

One hundred and twenty political parties had applied to participate in the House of Representatives elections.

According to the Election Commission's spokesperson Narayan Prasad Bhattarai, 102 political parties have been provided with separate election symbols.

A joint election symbol has been provided to 12 political parties which applied to jointly participate in the election.

On this basis, the Commission has stated that a total of 107 election symbols have been provided. 

A total of 143 political parties are registered with the commission. 

The number of parties participating in the elections is 114. 

A total of 107 election symbols will be used for the elections.

I must state upfront that I am neither a member, nor an official endorser of Kul Man Ghising's recently unveiled Ujyaulo Nepal Party (UNP). However, in a political landscape that often rewards personality over competence and exclusion over diversity, the UNP is exhibiting structural qualities that are, quite frankly, fresh, unprecedented and worthy of serious public discussion.

The persistent search for a solitary hero—the charismatic individual who will single-handedly slay the democratic ‘villain’—is, as the German playwright Bertolt Brecht warned, the mark of an unhappy land marred by systemic failure. This perpetual quest for an individual savior has long undermined institutional reform in Nepal. The Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), for instance, was largely built on the charisma of a single leader. The high-profile departures of key figures, notably Santosh Pariyar and Sumana Shrestha, illustrated the inherent vulnerability of this leader-centric model. Pariyar’s exit exposed a crisis of substantive inclusion, demonstrating the leadership’s difficulty in integrating diverse voices. Shrestha’s resignation, conversely, highlighted a failure of meritocracy and intra-party democracy, suggesting that the focus on a personality can quickly compromise a movement’s stated systemic principles.

This is where the UNP offers a compelling, albeit cautious, contrast. It appears to be an attempt to leverage the public trust in Ghising’s proven competence—a crucial national brand—to build a sustainable, systemic party, rather than a transient personality cult. The party’s decision to name former Energy Secretary Anup Kumar Upadhyay as its chairperson—a figure whose reputation rests entirely on bureaucratic and technical results—is a powerful rejection of the political-patronage model, prioritizing implementation over rhetoric. Furthermore, the party is attracting specialized ‘doers’ from non-political spheres. Figures like Shree Gurung and Kushal Gurung,  young entrepreneurs with extensive records in tourism, media, renewable energy and sustainable agriculture, are involved, signaling a commitment to embedding technical proficiency into policy formation and shifting the focus from the heroic leader to the competent administrator.

Crucially, the UNP has made a visible effort to ensure its central steering bodies reflect the nation’s ethnic mosaic. Unlike other rising parties whose leadership often mirrors a narrow, social circle of mainly Khas-Arya communities, the UNP’s foundation visibly includes highly competent experts from Dalit and Indigenous nationalities communities. This level of upfront, intentional inclusion is a systemic attempt to correct the historical elite dominance that marginalized communities fought against for decades. This diversity is not mere tokenism; it is the vital ingredient that ensures the party is truly national in character, capable of addressing the nuanced needs of a multi-ethnic society, and thus more equipped to build robust national institutions.

Despite these foundational strengths, the UNP faces the grave challenge of transitioning from relying on the heroic brand of Kul Man Ghising to establishing a robust political institution. The party must be extremely vigilant in protecting itself against the influence of extremist elements of the indigenous nationalities—those who might seek to leverage the platform to promote a polarizing form of  Khas-Arya hating ethnic sectarianism. If the UNP allows its inclusive structure to be hijacked by divisive identity politics, it will undermine the very systemic unity that the federal, democratic republic was hard-won to achieve.

Human political history, from the collapse of the First French Empire after Napoleon to the fragmentation following Tito’s death in the Balkans, teaches us that the hero’s reign is inevitably temporal, and the structure built around him will crumble without a self-sustaining system. The UNP offers a tantalizing new formula for Nepali politics. It is time to move past the seasonal heroism shown by populists who seek to dismantle the republic’s progressive achievements. The UNP’s ultimate test is whether it can successfully embody the principle that developed nations progress not by searching for heroes, but by institutionalizing competence, inclusion, and a commitment to the democratic system.