The upcoming general election and the mood that it has evoked have created an unprecedented moment in Nepali history. The discussions that this event has triggered vary in the patterns and modes of action. The general atmosphere suggests that the established political parties and the newcomers are responding to the mood of this moment in different ways. There are two different approaches. One is that of scepticism, and the other is of total enthusiasm imbibed without proper analysis of the situation. The snap election and its preparation pose challenges not only to the political parties but also to political scholars, social scientists, literary writers and artists.

As the change came suddenly in a matter of a few weeks or even days, with tangible effects discernible in the lives and patterns of ownership and domination within the power structure of the land, a group of people who have been in power or its periphery addressed this change with serious misgivings. But interestingly, they could not reject the change entirely. To the utter surprise of this group, former Chief Justice Sushila Karki—who, as a woman, would never be considered by the macho-centric politics as the prime minister of the democratic republic of Nepal—was given the bagdor to rule at this crucial juncture of history and leave after conducting elections on March 5, 2026. She can use all the accoutrements given by the constitution. In the face of the moments of scepticism, ire and fire, her government is moving towards conducting the historic general election.

Ironically, even those who made key achievements in the modern history of Nepal, like bringing the warring ferocious Maoist guerrillas to the forefront and signing the Comprehensive Peace Accord on November 21, 2006, with the seven parliamentary parties, continue to express scepticism. The elections involving the Maoists were held after the promulgation of the present constitution in the most challenging moment of Nepali history. Curiously, those parties that solved the most complex problems of settling down the guerrillas and the handover of weapons are still heard saying that there cannot be elections until all the weapons looted during the Gen Z uprising of September 8-9, 2025, are retrieved. The sceptical leaders of the political parties, either feigning ignorance or simply creating rhetoric of uncertainty about the capacity of the government to hold elections, are now engaged in preparation for contesting the polls. They are fully utilising the verbal, written and electronically produced mediums to express their views. Even the pioneer of the mass media, Marshall McLuhan, would have been surprised to see the leap of the all-pervasive media today.

The call of the election and the changing times can be observed in the response patterns. I will only mention a few names for lack of space, and also because the motif of this short essay is not a comprehensive analysis of the political parties. I would only like to allude to the pattern of the formation of the new alliances of the political parties and individuals as seen in the Rastriya Swatantra Party, the merger of parties as announced by Upendra Yadav’s Janata Samajbadi Party-Nepal (JSP-Nepal) and Mahanta Thakur’s Loktantrik Samajbadi Party (LSP), the formation of new parties like the Ujyalo Nepal Party of Kulman Ghising, and the melange of many communist parties—except the CPN-UML, Netra Bikram Chand’s Maoist party and Narayan Man Bijukshe’s Nepal Majdoor Kisan Party—under the nomenclature Nepali Communist Party.

There are many more examples. A dramatic and historical takeover of the leadership of the old and the biggest party, the Nepali Congress, by the millennials and Gen Z-ers from the clutches of elderly leaders represents an important development in Nepali politics. The task before the newly organised and reorganised parties is to avoid the stereotyping of the old structuralism.

The question of the impact of the individual leaders in Nepali politics warrants discussion. It is related to the question of the charisma of political leaders. The term ‘charisma’, used by the German sociologist Max Weber, is used to characterise the features of the personality of a political leader or a person who commands wider respect in society. To understand the features of the lure of leadership in Nepali politics, we should take a psychopolitical approach.

The institution of monarchy and the long rule of the Rana oligarchy in Nepal left no space for an individual to project their personality independently. NC leader BP Koirala’s court testimony of 1977 presents that subject in a courtroom for the first time. But the feudal system left its impact in such a way that even after the fall of the system, the politics of Nepal retained those features in a number of ways. People who wanted to project their uniqueness were not allowed to do so.

I recall one incident of the Panchayat parliament election of 2038 BS in which Nani Maiya Dahal heavily defeated a Panchayat candidate. She was considered a candidate who introduced an element of rebellion through her independent style of speech and actions. A huge procession with her seated on a high citizen-made chariot was taken round the city that evening. BBC journalist Mark Tully, who passed away last week, was waiting for this procession at New Road, Kathmandu. He asked me if I considered that ebullience an indication of a great transformation in Nepali politics. When I met Tully at the conference of SAARC Writers and Literature, where he and I shared the literary award in 2010, I reminded him of that evening. Tully had a very clear understanding of Nepali politics. He mentioned the cult persona in politics in South Asia.

To understand the zeitgeist or the mood of our times, we should examine how our national psyche shapes our actions. It would be a tautology to say that individuals harbour lust for power in Nepali politics. But the present mood and thrust of current Nepali politics is one of projecting the unique qualities of individual leaders more than presenting the cogently defined political philosophies. Individual leaders of all parties are competing to present the unique personal qualities of their leaders. As the system and the election process are democratic, individual leaders’ qualities may matter. But a euphoric propagation of the individual charisma and uniqueness of individual leaders would show the psychological legacy of the feudal culture.

Nepali politics and its leaders should not be too enamoured by the tendency to accentuate the personal qualities of a leader of politics or government. We should learn from the consequences of wrong attitudes. Nepali history, rich in variety, can be a good teacher.