News Summary
Editorial review conducted.
- Deputy Chair Vishwaprakash Sharma analyzed that Nepali Congress’s defeat was largely due to entering elections burdened by historical irregularities and a lack of cooperation by forces opposing the special general convention.
- Sharma identified factional disputes within the party, outdated organizational structure, social media algorithms, coalition impacts, and public dissatisfaction as key reasons for Congress’s defeat.
- He clarified that party president Gagan Thapa did not need to resign and that holding the new leadership accountable for a sweeping victory in a short span would be unjust.
6 Chaitra, Kathmandu – Initial analyses attribute Nepali Congress’s electoral defeat to the party entering the race burdened by longstanding internal issues and facing sabotage from factions opposed to the special general convention.
At the first central committee meeting held after the elections, Deputy Chair Vishwaprakash Sharma presented a preliminary review of the defeat and outlined 27 main reasons behind the party’s underperformance.
Due to the absence of party president Gagan Thapa, who resigned two days earlier, Sharma chaired the meeting. He emphasized the impact of “silence killing” and “sabotage” within the party on the electoral outcome, indicating without naming specific factions that certain internal elements actively worked against Congress candidates.
Sharma accused both leaders who were denied candidacy and those who failed to secure nominations of serious non-cooperation. Among these was former president Sher Bahadur Deuba, who sought candidacy but did not receive a ticket, with some former organizational leaders allegedly facilitating the defeat of their own party’s candidates — a view aligned with analysts supporting the special general convention.
Regarding opposition from other factions, Sharma remarked, “Opposing the special general convention is an individual’s freedom, yet refusing to support candidates under the tree election symbol cannot be justified as opposition to the convention or any other excuse. Offering help to fellow candidates contesting in areas where one previously stood is a basic ethical responsibility.”
Sharma stated some leaders remained silent, thus contributing to “silence killing.” Analysts aligned with the special general convention cited former presidents Deuba, Krishna Prasad Sitaula, Prakash Man Singh, and others as responsible for undermining the party’s efforts.
Indicating that disciplinary actions could be taken against those involved in undermining Congress candidates, Sharma said, “Some showed opportunism; others engaged in active sabotage. This has not only affected the party but will also significantly impact their personal political futures. Silence and inactivity raise ethical questions, and disciplinary inquiry is underway.”
He also underlined that the special general convention’s election of new leadership brought a message of renewal that did not reach voters in time. The inability to quickly regain public trust amid long-standing dissatisfaction was another contributing factor.
Sharma identified the outdated organizational structure as a cause of defeat, stating, “We fought the election with an old format that couldn’t handle new challenges. This was also an organizational reason for our loss.”
He noted that without the special general convention energizing the party to participate in the election, the outcome would likely have been even worse, acknowledging that the convention brought fresh blood into the party.
Deputy Chair Sharma believes the party’s defeat was shaped by the burden of past irregularities. He said that the refusal of a single individual to form committees after the special general convention also played a role.
“Candidate registration was completed just five days after the special general convention, and elections were held within fifty days. The new leadership energized the grassroots but failed to convey the message of change to citizens within a short period,” he explained. “Long-term dissatisfaction could not be transformed into trust quickly.”
While Sharma attributed responsibility for the defeat to all factions involved, he disagreed that President Thapa needed to resign. Regarding the resignation issue, he said, “It is unfair to blame the person who stepped in to control the fire at the last moment for not putting out the fire entirely.”
“Chain of systemic distortions as primary cause of defeat”
Sharma highlighted factors such as past governments’ performance, electoral coalitions, political power distribution, the Congress-UML alliance, and social media algorithms as contributing to Congress’s defeat.
He noted that although voters supported the then CPN-UML in 2017 hoping for a stable government, the inability to govern effectively for five years increased public disillusionment.
In 2022, no party secured a majority; despite being the largest party, Congress’s failure to form a government also negatively affected its standing.
“The 2017 election was a golden opportunity to form a stable government with nearly two-thirds majority, but it was squandered, which caused damage,” Sharma said. “After failing to provide a prime minister and stable government for five years, voters sought new alternatives, which contributed to our defeat.”
He observed that repetitive leadership faces in the prime ministerial role increased public disenchantment with traditional parties.
Sharma added that dissatisfaction grew in the party during coalition-focused election preparations, and the party was unable to address dissent manifesting since local elections and culminating in the GenJee rebellion of mid-September.
“Even after the flare-up of dissent in the GenJee rebellion, we did not declare an emergency or open doors for change within the party. We wasted approximately 125 days in fruitless internal debates,” he said.
He explained that domestic political weakness allowed opposition voices on social media to grow stronger, playing a critical role in the GenJee rebellion and turning into electoral consequences.
Sharma concluded that factionalism, personality-centered politics, and over-politicization within the organization harmed Congress’s electoral prospects. He also stated that political power-sharing within state bodies increased public distrust.
He highlighted that excessive politicization, failure of good governance, and corruption control contributed adversely to the election results.
“Narrative that nothing has changed in 35 years undermined party”
Sharma believes that Raswoapa’s (Rastriya Swatantra Party) aggressive narrative claiming that old parties have done nothing in 35 years significantly contributed to Congress’s defeat. “We failed to effectively communicate to the people that Congress has been in government continuously over these years,” he said.
He added that failure to raise public awareness about achievements such as ending the armed conflict, restoring democracy, and drafting the constitution contributed to the loss.
“Under Congress’s leadership, the country gained a new constitution and a new direction. Despite various ethnic, regional, and religious conflicts, Congress demonstrated restraint and maturity to lead the country towards unity,” Sharma stated. “Despite many adversities, the country achieved economic and physical development under Congress leadership and policies.”
He attributed the defeat to the party’s failure to understand the surge of “populism” and the misconception that old parties are entirely bad and that Congress’s return would fix everything, which misled public opinion.
Sharma also cited the party’s captivity to social media algorithms as a factor in the defeat and criticized the narrative that the winning party should not go abroad after elections, which emotionally resonated and influenced family perceptions.
He supported the view that the leadership elected through the special general convention was not responsible for the defeat and expressed opposition to the president’s resignation. Sharma said, “It is unjust to demand a decisive victory within fifty days of the new leadership taking charge and it would be unfair for the president to relinquish command abruptly.”
