Persistence or True Transformation?

Following the historic 2006 people’s movement, communist parties emerged as the leading power in Nepal’s parliament. Five prime ministers, two presidents, and five parliamentary speakers emerged from these parties. This movement, which once granted Nepal its first republican prime minister, first female president, and first female speaker—along with opportunities for majority and two-thirds governments—has now degraded to one of the most tragic moments in the nation’s history. What was once rooted in the principle that “a leader is a servant” has shifted toward the notion that “a leader is a master.”

Chronicle of a Historic Decline

In 2008, the communist parties won 57% of the vote and 61% of the seats, becoming the most powerful force in the Constituent Assembly. By 2017, their strength peaked with 48% of votes and 64% of seats. However, since then, their influence has waned sharply. Currently, they hold only 23% of the vote combined, securing 17 direct seats and 25 proportional seats, relegating them to a weakened third position. How did this rapid decline unfold?

Earlier, activists debated with leaders throughout the night within party rooms; today, they are stopped at the gates. Leaders have been deified, becoming inaccessible for meetings, discussions, or debates. Every decision by leaders is considered the “final truth,” and critics are branded as “party opponents,” destroying internal democracy.

Secretaries, instead of serving as bridges between leaders and the people, became obstacles. Their courts welcomed brokers, commission seekers, and contractors, leaving honest activists and the public stranded outside. The party culture, emphasizing ideological purity to gain entry, became deeply entrenched.

Dreams of Generations, Pride of Three

The movement started by Pushpalal, Manmohan, and Madan reached its zenith under Prachanda in 2008. However, by 2025, under the leadership of Oli and Prachanda, the movement was on the verge of collapse because they refused to recognize any leadership beyond themselves. Their insistence on sole chairmanship and denial of others’ influence weakened the movement. While Prachanda indulged within his limited circle, Oli was enveloped by arrogance and pride.

Adopting a right-leaning reformist stance, they became entangled in nepotism, favoritism, and sycophancy. Prachanda especially faced repeated nepotism accusations. As they isolated the authentic grassroots leaders by confining power within places like Thankot and Khumaltar, the organizational pyramid inverted and ultimately disintegrated.

The Death of Self-Criticism

Despite slogans of transparency, these communist parties have been accused of sinking in vast corruption. As their names became linked to major scandals, public trust shattered. Much like West Bengal’s CPI(M), which fell after losing connection with the people through land grabs and corruption over 34 years, Nepali communist parties are treading a similar path.

The significance of those carrying weapons diminished in parliament, while brokers and contractors carrying cash bags gained prominence. Many injured fighters from the war remain confined to wheelchairs; some spouses of combatants work laboriously in Gulf countries. Meanwhile, current communist leadership has become patrons of neo-feudalism and capitalism.

Communists remain the same, but the people are not. Usually adept at manipulating others, this time they have deceived their own citizens.

The people voted for the communists with high hopes in 2008 and 2017. But once in power, leaders became intoxicated with power, fought among themselves, sought to expose each other’s weaknesses, and ultimately all were exposed. The main actors in this failure are KP Sharma Oli, Prachanda, and Madhav Kumar Nepal. Remarkably, rather than admitting mistakes, they have been busy blaming the US and India, considering blaming foreigners rather than engaging in self-reflection a success.

Anger of the Gen Z Generation

The 2025 Gen Z movement revealed intense youth discontent with traditional parties, especially communist ones. Young people demanding employment, good governance, and stability lost faith in the communists. The sentiment “the revolution heard in their fathers’ times, met with despair in their own” dealt a severe blow to the movement.

New forces like the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RaswaPa) successfully attracted citizens seeking alternatives to old parties by offering change and fresh approaches appealing to youth and the middle class. In 2017, those securing 60% of votes failed to serve the public, naturally turning citizens toward new faces.

Following the Gen Z movement in September 2025, a wave of political change swept Nepal. Old parties were ousted, and new young forces emerged. KP Oli lost to 40-year-younger Balendra Shah from Jhapa-5 by nearly 50,000 votes. While Prachanda won, many leaders from the communist camp have faced harsh consequences of this change.

Some war veterans remain disabled and wheelchair-bound. Many spouses work hard abroad. The once proud communist leadership has become enablers of neo-feudalism and capitalism.

Conclusion

When parties diverge from their core principles and lose the people’s trust, the distinctions among them vanish—revealing the same policies, practices, promises, and results. The 2025 election made this abundantly clear. The communists remain unchanged, but the people have changed. Consistently used to deceiving others, this time they have deceived their own citizens.

Now voices say, “The people have awakened; it’s the leaders’ turn.” Taking risks to give opportunities to new young generations, this public decision is poised to transform Nepal’s political future.

Facing a critical crossroads, Nepal’s communist forces must now ask themselves: Will they truly transform, or merely persist?

(Dr. Adhikari, a former member of Gandaki Province Policy and Planning Commission, currently a researcher at the Third Pole Environment Center at Lanzhou University, China.)