In a recent column of The Economist, a story, ‘anger is deadly to moderate politicians’ elaborates humiliation management as a central task for successful states and warns that diffusing public anger carries the risk of voters’ disapproval. In Nepal, with elections around the corner, the old political parties have just witnessed massive anger against them during September’s Gen Z movement. They might be afraid of negative tides being raised against them because their promise of basic service delivery remains unfulfilled. Moreover, they have failed to treat the citizens with dignity or provide state amenities with equal access to all, especially to the people who live on the fringes.

Voters in Nepal have been humiliated every time since the advent of electoral democracy. Their dreams have been shattered, as electoral promises are never fulfilled. Despite multiple rounds of people-led revolutions that advocated for structural and institutional reforms, citizens still feel cheated by the political parties and displaced from the state machinery, which in turn was being run by a collusion of political parties and their cronies.

So, will the voters, once again, be disillusioned with empty promises made by the parties and run the risk of being humiliated after the elections? To answer this query, let us dig into some recent tumultuous events and their repercussions in today's political landscape. Nepali voters participated, supported and witnessed massive demonstrations during the Gen Z movement, which unfortunately ended as one of the deadliest and most destructive events in Nepali history. Many citizens are yet to recover from this turmoil. The disruptions were so large that not only was the existing government ousted, but an interim government was formed to conduct elections on March 5, 2026. Along with this, many political parties such as the Nepali Congress (NC), the erstwhile CPN(Maoist Centre) and the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) had to struggle through massive transformations. The citizens have also been taking note of the recent elections in Bangladesh, which saw the return of an old party, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), but with massive endorsement of the Gen Z agenda for constitutional and other structural reforms. They must also have learnt lessons from the 2022 protest (Aragalaya movement) in Sri Lanka, which, despite its intensity, failed to bring lasting change to institutions.

Obviously, a Nepali voter facing the March 5 elections must be thinking of what is in their reach as a choice for change. What happens if the party leaders do not keep their promises again? What will happen to the country and the people if the changes and reforms that the Gen Z movement promised do not translate into reality? Will the voters be humiliated again? There were a number of Gen Z representatives and civil society leaders who wanted constitutional changes prior to the elections. But that didn't take place. Now, the elections are just a few weeks away, and we didn’t choose the option of conducting a referendum on reforms like in Bangladesh.

Presenting promising outcomes post-elections may embolden the voters to think more wisely and choose ‘hope’ before they go to the polls. Whereas presenting a grim outcome post-elections would be a highly fragmented mandate. It would result in horse-trading among political parties scrambling for power. In such circumstances, governance and public service would become secondary concerns, with little focus on delivering for the common people. If this happens, one can imagine disruptions and violent demonstrations on the street in repeated cycles at short intervals, resulting in low growth, instability and continuity of massive emigration. However, if the election results bring a populist personality to the public stage, a stable and optimistic future is unlikely.

The above two scenarios would do little to empower a Nepali voter. Instead, they will be subjected to more humiliation and disenchantment within a few months of the elections. So, how can such extreme outcomes be avoided? First, what questions should a voter ask before casting their ballot? Even though a pre-election consensus could not be conceived for defining the agenda of governance and reforms, the aspired reforms are still possible and could be made feasible. However, the major contesting political parties must keep the agenda of reforms in their core of their manifestos for elections. And if this happens, a voter must be aware of this so that they can ask the right questions seeking accountability from the leaders. The important decision a voter must make is to be informed on such reform promises and ask ‘how’ questions, meaning, ask the candidates about how such reforms will be made and whether the common citizenry will be engaged in the decision-making process on such structural reforms.

First, on the head of the government, a voter should ask, “What will change within government institutions such as the police, civil service and political parties?” If a party cannot clearly explain how it will change institutions, it is not offering reform—it is offering power transfer only. Second, on corruption, nepotism and public service reforms, a voter may ask questions such as: “How exactly will you prevent political appointments of relatives and party loyalists to public offices?” and “Will you support laws that make senior appointments fully open, competitive and publicly audited?” Third, on political party reforms and electoral reforms, a voter should ask, “What reforms will you implement inside your own party?” Fourth, on citizen participation and political engagement, a voter may ask, “How will you institutionalise citizen input beyond elections?” On the rule of law and human rights, a voter may ask, “What specific commitments do you make to protect civil liberties, freedom of expression, freedom of social media, and minority rights? Finally, on youth and Gen Z leadership, a voter may ask, “How will you create permanent entry pathways for young professionals and activists into public service without party connections?”

Real reform requires clear commitments to transform institutions—not only change leaders. Poll promises without structural roadmaps will not insulate Nepali democracy from repeated cycles of discontent.