KATHMANDU: Nepali politics is at a defining juncture. In the wake of the nationwide Gen Z movement, Nepal’s major political parties—including the Nepali Congress (NC), the Communist Party of Nepal (UML), the Maoist Centre, and the Unified Socialist Party—have been navigating turbulent internal waters, grappling with leadership ambitions and generational pressures.

Leadership ambition, generational aspirations, and institutional reform are converging in ways that have exposed the fault lines of party hierarchies. What was once a predictable rhythm of succession, coalition-building, and organizational control has been disrupted by youth activism, independent actors, and growing demands for internal democracy.

The Gen Z movement, driven by digitally connected, socially conscious young Nepalis, was more than a call for policy change—it was a demand for structural transformation.

It sought to challenge entrenched hierarchies, introduce meritocracy, and expand leadership opportunities for a generation previously relegated to the sidelines.

Yet, in many of Nepal’s major parties, these aspirations have collided with entrenched leadership interests, producing a complex mix of factional infighting, symbolic reforms, and strategic maneuvering.

Leadership Contention: The Central Struggle

Across the political spectrum, the struggle for leadership has emerged as the defining feature of party dynamics. Senior figures continue to prioritize control over party machinery, sometimes at the expense of internal cohesion or ideological clarity.

In parties like the Maoist Centre and Unified Socialist Party, this battle for authority is particularly acute. Leadership capture dictates not only the distribution of resources and candidate selection but also the trajectory of party influence and long-term strategy.

The result is a political landscape where unity and fragmentation coexist, often in paradoxical ways. While parties announce mergers or symbolic reforms, internal divisions simmer beneath the surface, manifesting as splinter factions, competing conventions, or strategic alliances that reflect personal ambitions rather than policy priorities.

Nepali Congress: Pre-Election Conventions and Factional Tensions

The Nepali Congress, historically Nepal’s largest and most influential political party, has entered a particularly contentious phase following President Sher Bahadur Deuba’s voluntary withdrawal from active politics. Deuba’s decision, while framed as a step toward generational accommodation, has exposed the deep structural and strategic fissures that run through the party.

At the center of this turbulence is the scheduling and procedural conduct of the party’s 15th general convention, an event widely seen as pivotal not only for internal leadership succession but also for setting the party’s trajectory in the post-Gen Z political landscape.

Competing factions within the party have presented sharply divergent visions of how and when the convention should be conducted, reflecting broader generational and strategic divides.

The institutional wing, largely composed of senior leaders and long-standing office-bearers, has proposed holding the convention after the national elections on March 5, 2026. They cite electoral stability, administrative continuity, and strategic prudence as primary justifications, suggesting that a pre-election leadership transition could create uncertainty, undermine candidate preparation, and weaken the party’s prospects at the ballot box. This approach prioritizes continuity and organizational caution, emphasizing the preservation of the existing hierarchical order.

In contrast, the reformist faction, led by General Secretary Gagan Thapa, has argued passionately for a pre-election convention, proposing the dates for late December or early January. Thapa and his allies contend that early leadership selection would enhance accountability, invigorate grassroots participation, and send a clear signal that the party is serious about addressing the demands of a politically assertive youth electorate.

Their position reflects the pressure generated by the Gen Z movement, which has emphasized transparency, internal democracy, and meaningful participation for younger party members.

For this faction, delaying the convention risks alienating young activists and voters, undermining both electoral prospects and long-term party credibility.

The debates are further complicated by the interventions of senior figures such as Krishna Prasad Sitaula, Prakash Man Singh, and Bimalendra Nidhi. While often positioned as guardians of institutional memory and experience, these leaders’ positions are also intertwined with personal political calculations, including considerations of candidacy, influence over party machinery, and the distribution of key portfolios. Their involvement highlights how the Nepali Congress’s internal dynamics are shaped as much by individual ambitions and legacy considerations as by ideological or procedural imperatives.

The resulting three-way factionalization—between the institutional wing, the Thapa-led reformists, and supporters of Shekhar Koirala—has made the convention debate more than a technical matter of scheduling.

It has become a microcosm of the party’s struggle to balance experience with renewal, senior authority with generational inclusivity, and strategic caution with responsiveness to a changing electorate. The negotiations, intense and public, have involved not only policy discussions but also debates over delegate representation, youth quotas, membership renewal transparency, and the fairness of internal elections.

District-level party meetings and committee consultations have further amplified the tensions. In several regions, local leaders have openly challenged the central directives, questioning the legitimacy of proposed timelines and calling for more inclusive processes.

The media coverage of these disputes has made it clear that the Nepali Congress is navigating a delicate balancing act: failing to engage younger members risks further alienation, yet undermining senior authority could provoke fragmentation and weaken the party’s cohesive electoral strategy.

Ultimately, the internal debates over convention timing and leadership selection within the Nepali Congress reflect a broader challenge facing Nepali politics in the post-Gen Z era. They illuminate the difficulty of institutionalizing generational change within legacy parties while maintaining organizational coherence, electoral competitiveness, and public trust.

How the Nepali Congress manages this transition—whether through compromise, structured reform, or protracted negotiation—will have implications not only for the party’s survival but also for the broader trajectory of democracy in Nepal, where internal party legitimacy is closely tied to national governance credibility.

CPN-UML: Early Conventions and Generational Inclusion

The Communist Party of Nepal (UML) has embarked on a proactive yet contentious approach to managing leadership succession, even as its long-serving Chairperson KP Sharma Oli continues to assert control over party mechanisms.

The tension is particularly visible in Oli’s handling of senior figures such as former President Bidya Bhandari, whose party membership renewal was reportedly blocked—a move that has fueled perceptions of internal favoritism and deepened factional friction. These developments underscore the delicate balance the UML faces: responding to calls for generational change while accommodating entrenched senior authority.

In the wake of the Gen Z protests, which amplified demands for transparency, youth participation, and accountable leadership across Nepali politics, the UML scheduled an “early” central convention.

This strategic decision was intended to signal the party’s recognition of generational aspirations and the urgent need to institutionalize leadership transition.

Leaders, including Senior Vice Chair Ishwar Pokharel, have publicly advocated for a smooth and structured transfer of power away from Oli, emphasizing both the political necessity and the ethical imperative of leadership renewal.

Their calls reflect a growing acknowledgment that the party’s long-term survival depends on bridging the generational divide rather than deepening it.

At the same time, the UML has made formal provisions to ensure youth representation, requiring that each constituency elect at least one delegate under the age of 40 to central decision-making bodies. While this quota system demonstrates a calculated attempt to respond to the pressures of the Gen Z movement, it also reveals the party’s careful effort to maintain senior leadership influence.

In other words, the process is designed not only to empower younger cadres but also to prevent a wholesale erosion of existing hierarchies.

However, implementation at the district level has exposed the inherent challenges of such a transition. Conventions have been marked by clashes between competing factions, election disruptions, and disputes over membership renewals, reflecting the organizational strain that accompanies attempts to balance generational inclusion with entrenched authority.

In some cases, procedural disputes have spilled into public view, highlighting the fragility of internal cohesion and the high stakes of succession politics. Analysts note that these tensions are symptomatic of a party caught between the pressures of modernization and the inertia of legacy structures, with each district-level contest revealing the limits of both leadership control and grassroots compliance.

The UML’s current trajectory illustrates a broader pattern in Nepali party politics: the struggle to institutionalize generational change while simultaneously managing the ambitions and insecurities of senior leaders. How effectively the party navigates this period of tension will have implications not only for its electoral prospects but also for the broader political ecosystem, where internal party stability directly shapes legislative cohesion, governance capacity, and public trust.

Maoist Centre and Unified Socialist Party: Ideology Versus Personal Ambition

The Maoist Centre, under Pushpa Kamal Dahal “Prachanda,” and the Unified Socialist Party, led by Madhav Kumar Nepal, exemplify the delicate tension between ideological commitment and personal ambition within Nepal’s major leftist parties.

In the aftermath of the Gen Z movement, both parties moved to consolidate with smaller leftist groups, framing these unification efforts as steps to strengthen socialist ideology, protect the achievements of the federal democratic republic, and ensure socio-economic transformation.

Publicly, the narrative emphasized ideological cohesion and generational inclusion. In practice, however, the process has revealed deep internal fault lines.

Dissent within the Maoist Centre surfaced early, with senior and mid-level leaders, including Janardan Sharma and Ram Karki, voicing sharp criticism. They argued that the unification sidelined younger members and disregarded the principles championed by the Gen Z movement, suggesting that the party prioritized centralization of authority over meritocratic leadership renewal.

In response, initiatives like the “Progressive Campaign Nepal,” spearheaded by Sharma, have emerged to advocate for youth empowerment, accountability, and transparent organizational reform, positioning themselves as a counterweight to entrenched senior influence.

The Unified Socialist Party has faced equally intense internal pressures. Divisions quickly became apparent between factions supporting full integration with the Maoist Centre and those pressing for independent party restructuring.

Among the key figures navigating this divide is Jhalanath Khanal, who has reportedly been in active talks with UML leadership regarding a possible return to the party. Such maneuvers are not merely symbolic; they signal an ongoing recalibration of alliances and highlight how senior leaders leverage personal networks to secure political relevance.

 Similarly, leaders like Ramkumari Jhakri, Kishan Shrestha, and other senior figures have publicly declared their intention to return to UML, further emphasizing the fluidity of party loyalties and the strategic repositioning underway in the leftist political spectrum.

Meanwhile, Ghanshyam Bhusal is engaged in efforts to consolidate splinter groups aligned with the Biplav faction, reflecting the fragmented and competitive nature of Nepal’s leftist politics. Janardan Sharma, in parallel, continues to promote the Progressive Campaign as a platform to institutionalize youth representation, reinforce generational leadership, and counterbalance senior-centric power consolidation.

These overlapping initiatives illustrate how internal party dynamics are now shaped not only by ideological goals but also by tactical calculations, personal ambition, and the drive to shape the post-Gen Z political narrative.

Across both the Maoist Centre and the Unified Socialist Party, a clear pattern emerges: public ideological messaging and promises of unity often take a backseat to the strategic imperatives of leadership consolidation.

While unification and mergers are portrayed as steps toward socialist cohesion, the underlying struggle reflects the primacy of personal authority, factional leverage, and the negotiation of internal hierarchies. Generational aspirations, youth-led campaigns, and reformist agendas, though increasingly vocal and visible, must contend with entrenched senior leadership and the complex maneuvering of high-profile political actors.

In essence, these developments underscore a recurring reality in Nepal’s contemporary leftist politics: structural reform, ideological coherence, and generational inclusion are continually mediated—and often constrained—by the ambitions of senior leaders and the strategic imperatives of party survival.

The interplay of these forces not only determines internal stability but also sets the stage for broader electoral strategies, coalition negotiations, and the evolving contours of leftist politics in Nepal’s post-Gen Z era.

Rastriya Swatantra Party: Reformist Promise Confronts Reality

The Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), established in 2022 under Rabi Lamichhane, has rapidly become a focal point of youth and urban political enthusiasm. Initially celebrated for its reformist agenda, commitment to internal democracy, and outsider-driven leadership, the party is now navigating a series of internal challenges that threaten its early momentum. Lamichhane’s current incarceration has left a leadership vacuum, testing the party’s capacity to maintain cohesion, drive strategy, and retain public credibility.

Recent developments have compounded this instability. Sumana Shrestha, one of the party’s prominent figures and a symbol of internal reformist energy, resigned in 2025, citing structural limitations on consultation and the marginalization of participatory decision-making. Her departure has been widely interpreted as a signal of unfulfilled reformist promises, raising questions about the party’s ability to sustain youth support in a competitive political landscape.

Simultaneously, RSP leadership is actively exploring strategic expansions. High-profile consultations are underway regarding potential integration of influential independent figures, including Kathmandu Mayor Balendra Shah (Balen) and Kulman Ghising.

Party strategists view these incorporations as essential to reinforcing the RSP’s credibility as a youth-led, reform-oriented alternative while simultaneously broadening its organizational base and electoral appeal.

However, these initiatives are fraught with challenges, including negotiating individual autonomy, ideological alignment, and leadership roles within a still-nascent party structure.

The RSP’s current trajectory illustrates the delicate balancing act inherent in translating reformist energy into sustainable political structures. Maintaining internal cohesion while integrating high-profile independents and responding to the expectations of an engaged, digitally connected electorate will determine whether RSP solidifies its position as a generationally relevant force or succumbs to internal contradictions and fragmentation.

In essence, the party embodies both the promise and the peril of post-Gen Z politics: a capacity to energize voters and push structural reform, but also vulnerability to leadership vacuums, resignations, and internal discord.

Rastriya Prajatantra Party: Leadership Tensions Under Lingden

Even parties with a strong conservative identity are not immune to internal friction. The Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP), led by Chairman Rajendra Lingden, is currently navigating a precarious leadership contest that exposes generational and strategic divides within the party. Lingden, who has positioned himself as a reform-oriented conservative voice, now faces an internal challenge from General Secretary Dhawal Shamsher Rana.

Rana’s faction accuses the leadership of centralizing decision-making, delaying conventions, and marginalizing younger members, reflecting broader frustrations over transparency and party democracy.

The dispute has grown increasingly public, with both sides mobilizing support among district committees and senior cadres.

Analysts note that this tension is more than a mere personality clash; it reflects a structural dilemma for a party historically anchored in hierarchical and royalist traditions.

Lingden’s ability to maintain authority while accommodating internal criticism will determine whether RPP can preserve cohesion or face fragmentation, particularly as political observers speculate about the possibility of splinter groups forming in response to leadership discontent.

The unfolding scenario underscores that even ideologically stable, conservative parties must contend with generational pressures, personal ambitions, and organizational accountability in Nepal’s post-Gen Z political environment.

Fragmentation and the Illusion of Unity

In the Maoist Centre and Unified Socialist Party, unification efforts have often been criticized as performative—a “unity theater” masking underlying power consolidation. Decisions regarding party names, election symbols, and leadership roles, while organizationally important, largely reflect attempts to manage dissent rather than foster genuine generational inclusion.

The proposed unified communist party, set to adopt the name “Nepali Communist Party” with a five-star election symbol and leadership shared between Prachanda and Madhav Nepal, epitomizes this approach: symbolic gestures of inclusion, coupled with concentrated authority.

Such factional negotiations and splintering are mirrored across smaller parties, where leadership disputes often manifest as alliances, renegotiated hierarchies, or splinter groups. Across Nepali politics, these patterns reveal the tension between ideology, generational aspiration, and personal ambition—a tension that is shaping both party structure and national political discourse.

Generational Aspirations Versus Symbolic Accommodation

Across parties, a recurring pattern emerges: generational inclusion is often symbolic. Programs like Progressive Campaign Nepal reflect youth demand for meaningful leadership pathways, yet senior leadership frequently resists substantive change.

In the Nepali Congress, debates over pre- versus post-election conventions illuminate the generational divide. Young leaders seek early leadership selection to enhance accountability and mobilize youth support, while senior leaders emphasize continuity and strategic advantage. Across the political spectrum, these dynamics reveal the persistent gap between generational activism and institutional appetite for reform.

Implications for Democracy and Governance

Internal party struggles have profound implications for Nepal’s democratic trajectory. Leadership disputes and factionalism compromise party cohesion, electoral readiness, and public trust. When power consolidation takes precedence over generational renewal, parties risk alienating young members and voters, potentially eroding long-term legitimacy.

Centralized authority within parties also limits internal debate, policy innovation, and responsive governance. In a country still consolidating federal structures and democratic institutions, the quality of intra-party democracy has direct consequences for national governance.

Leadership struggles and factionalism are thus not merely internal matters—they affect policy implementation, governance accountability, and social equity at a systemic level.

Electoral cycles, too, are heavily influenced. Parties with unresolved internal divisions often face poor coordination during campaigns, weakened messaging, and reduced ability to respond to voter concerns. This creates opportunities for independent candidates and newly formed parties to fill the credibility gap, further reshaping the political ecosystem.

Independent Leadership and Emerging Alternatives

A defining feature of contemporary Nepali politics is the rise of independent actors who challenge entrenched hierarchies. Figures like Balendra Shah—popularly known as Balen—illustrate the potential of outsider leadership in an environment where traditional parties struggle with internal reform. Elected as Kathmandu mayor on a platform emphasizing decentralization, transparency, and youth empowerment, Shah represents a generational pivot in Nepali politics.

His appeal lies not only in his outsider status but in his ability to articulate a vision resonant with the Post Gen-Z electorate: one that values participation, accountability, and practical governance over ideological posturing.

Yet independent leadership brings its own challenges. Aligning with existing parties risks diluting credibility, while creating a new political platform entails organizational, logistical, and financial hurdles.

Nevertheless, the rise of independent actors serves as both a warning and a catalyst for established parties: adapt to new leadership models or risk losing relevance entirely.

Parties now must balance the need for continuity with openness to outsider perspectives, demonstrating flexibility in leadership, policy development, and youth engagement.

The presence of independent leadership also intensifies intra-party generational pressure. Youth activists are increasingly emboldened to challenge senior figures, demand internal transparency, and insist on tangible avenues for participation.

This dual pressure—from inside the parties and from independent public figures—signals that the political landscape is evolving rapidly, reshaping traditional power dynamics in ways unprecedented since Nepal’s post-monarchy political restructuring.

Prospective Trajectories: Renewal or Fragmentation

Nepali parties face two broad potential trajectories. The first is renewal: embracing structural reform, generational inclusion, and internal democracy to sustain legitimacy and electoral competitiveness. Such renewal requires tangible measures, including youth quotas, open conventions, merit-based candidate selection, and transparency in decision-making processes.

Parties that successfully navigate these reforms could consolidate public trust, attract energetic young cadres, and reinvigorate organizational vitality.

The second trajectory is fragmentation: resisting reform, ignoring youth demands, and reinforcing hierarchical dominance. This path risks internal defections, independent candidate challenges, splinter formations, and diminished electoral strength.

Historical precedents in Nepali politics—such as the fragmentation of the CPN-UML or the splintering of the Nepali Congress during leadership disputes in the past—illustrate the risks of inaction.

Fragmentation may also create long-term governance instability, undermining coalition cohesion and national policy continuity.

The interplay of youth activism, independent leadership, and entrenched hierarchy will shape the next decade. Parties face a strategic inflection point: adapt and survive, or cling to tradition and risk marginalization. The choices made in the coming months, including convention timing, membership renewal, and leadership rotation, will determine whether Nepal’s political system evolves toward inclusivity or ossifies into hierarchical rigidity.

A Defining Moment for Nepali Politics

Nepal’s political parties stand at a critical juncture. The post-Gen Z era has foregrounded generational activism, youth mobilization, and the rise of independent actors as central forces in shaping the country’s political trajectory. Across the Nepali Congress, UML, Maoist Centre, Unified Socialist, RPP, and RSP, structural weaknesses, factional disputes, and generational frustrations converge to test institutional resilience.

The challenge is profound: traditional succession patterns, hierarchical governance, and coalition politics are under pressure from unprecedented demands for transparency, participation, and accountability. Leadership conventions, youth quotas, open debates, and responsiveness to citizen mobilization will determine which parties can adapt and survive. Those that fail to embrace these changes risk marginalization, electoral decline, and erosion of legitimacy.

Ultimately, the next era of Nepali politics will hinge not only on electoral outcomes but on parties’ capacity to reform from within. The choices they make will shape the resilience of democracy, the quality of governance, and the inclusivity of political institutions for years to come. Nepal’s political future, it seems, will be defined as much by generational courage and independent leadership as by the strategies and ambitions of its senior party elites.