Nepalis were longing for a stable majority government. The sweet dream has come true. With the Rastriya Swatantra Party receiving an overwhelming majority, it has become necessary to think and understand this from multiple angles. Discussion of a majority government is essential because the country’s democratic experience has long been affected by unstable coalition governments, shifting political equations and repeated changes in power. In such a context, when the possibility of a majority government emerges, it is no longer just a question of political stability; it also becomes crucial how that power will be used.

Street politics and running a government are essentially two different political processes. Street politics is about raising opposition and creating pressure and public sentiment. But when it comes to running the government, the political force must not only oppose but also present solutions. Governance means making policies, balancing limited resources, running the administration and establishing compromises between various interests. Therefore, what seems simple on the street becomes extremely complex in governance.

This is why it is often said that the transition from the politics of opposition to the politics of governance is the most difficult phase. When in opposition, political parties can make idealistic claims and demand rapid change. But after coming to power, they also have to consider economic realities, administrative limitations, legal processes and international circumstances. Therefore, decisions while in power must not only be popular but also practical. This is when the real test of political maturity and leadership takes place.

In this context, it is often said that the path to achieving the goal is not easy. In politics, too, obtaining overwhelming majority power is as difficult as running it responsibly. Balancing public expectations, institutional limits and political pressure amid this becomes the true touchstone of democratic leadership.

A ‘full majority’ is not just an electoral result in Nepali politics. It also creates political psychology. Having endured more than three decades of coalitions, splits, reorganisations and short-term governments, Nepali democracy has developed a deeper hunger for stability. In such a situation, when one party receives a clear majority, people hope that decisions will be swift, policies clear, and continuity will come to governance.

In Nepal’s democratic journey, a full majority government is therefore both an opportunity and a test: an opportunity in the sense that it can break the cycle of political instability and advance long-term policies; and a test because it must prove that a majority government is possible while upholding democratic values. But history teaches us that while a full majority promises as much stability, it carries the risk of power centralisation to the same extent.

In a democracy, the majority does not guarantee the government unlimited rights. Democracy is not merely a game of numbers. It also rests on institutions, balances and respect for dissent. When one party holds a massive majority, it often creates the illusion that electoral victory is moral approval for every policy. This is the moment when the real test of democracy begins, and the importance of internal democracy within the ruling party increases. If debate and dissent within the party end, the decision-making process gradually turns into closed-room politics.

The role of parliament is not only to pass laws but also to ensure the government’s accountability. A strong opposition is therefore necessary to keep power constantly under scrutiny. But when the majority is very large, the opposition’s voice often remains symbolic. A strong opposition remains essential even when it lacks sufficient numbers to counter bills. The responsibility increases even more if the ruling party itself adheres to democratic norms.

Managing people’s expectations is another challenge of Nepali politics. An outstanding electoral victory often generates an explosion of public aspirations. People feel that change will come quickly, the corruption will decrease, the administration will become efficient, and the economy will gain momentum. But the reality of governance is far more complex than election speeches.

Nepal’s federal system is still in the process of attaining institutional maturity, as coordination among the federal, provincial and local governments has not fully matured. Bureaucratic inertia and resource limitations also slow policy implementation. Thus, a majority government’s major challenge is to realistically channelise public expectations. This is where the role of democratic institutions such as the judiciary, constitutional commissions and oversight mechanisms becomes important. There will be an imbalance of democracy if the government tries to influence or control these institutions.

As is the global trend, when people reach power on the strength of individual-led populism, personal relationships and loyalty often determine decision-making processes rather than institutional frameworks. In such a system, foreign policy too sometimes gets decided within a limited leadership circle rather than through formal institutional discussions. As a result, continuity and transparency in international relations can weaken because decisions begin to be influenced by immediate political convenience or personal equations rather than long-term national interests. When leadership becomes excessively person-centric, diplomacy shifts from institutional rules and multilateral processes towards personal relationships and power displays.

On foreign relations, stability in government is key to enhancing Nepal’s diplomatic credibility. Policy stability and political stability are what foreign investors and development partners demand. But stability is meaningful only when it is accompanied by policy clarity and transparency. Nepal’s foreign policy has traditionally been the politics of balance; its essence has been to maintain balanced relations with other countries while increasing cooperation with the global community. A majority government may have the opportunity to play this balance with greater confidence, provided it maintains strategic discretion. It is often observed that the majority government falters in maintaining balance.

Ultimately, the success of a full majority government will not be measured only by how many seats it has in parliament. The real test will be how it uses that power. If the majority is combined with humility, it strengthens democracy; otherwise, it can become the biggest threat if it turns arrogant. Therefore, a majority government needs to tread this tightrope—demonstrate that it can take and execute decisions but avoid appearing authoritarian while maintaining public trust.

Hence, this dream of political stability creates a democratic paradox, i.e., the lines between a decisive government and political dominance can be easily blurred. The risk of weakening the checks and balances mechanism runs high when a ruling party controls the executive and also has an excessive number in parliament. Nepal has experienced this dilemma before. A majority government may assume that electoral victory gives it a broad mandate for every policy. But democracy must not be reduced to majoritarianism.

Civil society played a vital role in shaping the discourse that produced the post-2006 political order in Nepal. But in the recent Gen Z uprising, this side remained mostly absent. For a democratic government, civic space is needed to show the path ahead. But this should not be government-nurtured or controlled; it should be independent. The stronger the civic space, the more the government will restrain itself from going unchecked. The first task of populist politics is often to discredit civic space. Nepal will have to prove itself an exception in this situation.