On September 1, on the final day of the Nepali Congress Central Working Committee meeting, General Secretary Bishwa Prakash Sharma explicitly urged Sher Bahadur Deuba, the party president, to give up his aspirations to be the prime minister yet again.

As per the seven-point agreement between the Congress and the CPN-UML on July 1, UML Chairman KP Sharma Oli, the incumbent prime minister, will lead the government for the first two years. Then Congress chief Deuba will lead the government until the elections in November-December 2027.

Sharma urged Deuba to leave the prime minister’s post for another senior Congress leader. Deuba reportedly rejected the proposal outright.

“I will not give up the position just because someone so desires,” Deuba reportedly said in response.

Sharma, one of the two general secretaries of the country’s oldest political party, had proposed an exit policy in his contemporary political proposal tabled at the Mahasamiti meeting in February for the leaders holding state positions such as president, prime minister, ministers.

Besides Sharma's proposal, the Mahasamiti also endorsed the papers submitted by Vice-president Purna Bahadur Khadka and General Secretary Gagan Thapa.

However, it also gave room for the central committee to modify the proposal. When the central committee approved Khadka’s policy proposal and Thapa’s organisational proposal with minor changes, Sharma’s paper was pushed back to be considered while amending the national constitution.

Sharma proposed one term for the [country’s] President, two terms for the prime minister, three terms for ministers, and four terms for lawmakers.

Sharma’s proposal on term limits on persons serving as the country’s president or the prime minister is a national rather than the party’s issue, so it has been deferred, according to party leaders.

Most of the Congress central leaders who spoke at the meeting, which lasted almost a month with gaps in between, claimed that fixing a time limit for the leadership was contrary to the democratic principle that the party champions.

UML chief whip Mahesh Bartaula also says that since politics is a voluntary job, the politicians should be able to contribute to the society for as long as they want.

“Nonetheless, the exit policy proposal is thought-provoking,” Bartaula told the Post.

As a new generation of leaders is yet to be fully developed, the public still trusts the older crop of leaders, he argues. “Those vying for top positions are yet to gain the public’s credibility.”

For Krishna Pokharel, a professor of political science, it would be unnatural to amend the constitution to address Sharma’s demand.

“In countries where people directly elect their prime minister, amending the constitution to limit the executive head’s term could be reasonable” Pokharel told the Post. “However, in a country like Nepal where the parties choose the prime minister, exit policy should rather be mentioned in the party’s statute.”

Had Nepali leaders internalised the spirit of the parliamentary system, their entry and exit points need not have been discussed. “The parliamentary system in Nepal has been vulgarised,” Pokharel added.

According to political experts, despite the Congress leaders criticising the exit policy at the central committee, the proposal’s public appeal is growing.

They see no alternative to its implementation, sooner or later.

One reason for growing public disenchantment with political parties is that the same old faces have continued in leadership positions for a long time. If there were a term limit for a leader in a governmental or party position, people’s dissatisfaction would somehow be addressed.

Experts say the recent political upheaval in Bangladesh and the political crisis of Sri Lanka two years ago were due to the continuous rule by a single person or a single family.

One reason some democracies struggle is their political leaders’ unlimited hunger for power, Uddab Pyakurel, a political analyst, told the Post. “In Nordic countries, there is no need to set term limits for leaders as there is already a strong democratic culture there.”

Despite having leaders like Donald Trump, American democracy still works, partly because of the term limits, Pyakurel reasoned.

“If Nepal is to strengthen its democratic system, it must implement the exit policy for political leaders,” he said.

Some political experts see problems even after introducing a term limit.

Arguing that limiting the tenure for top positions alone is not enough to put curbs on autocratic tendencies, Khagendra Prasai, another political analyst, said: “The major issue is developing political mannerism and culture.”

Calls for the top party leadership making way for a new generation are growing not just in the Congress. Even during the CPN (Maoist Centre) standing committee meeting last month, Deputy General Secretary Janardan Sharma questioned Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s uninterrupted leadership for nearly 35 years. Sharma even urged Dahal to resign the position.

Experts say leaders with limited terms realise they must get a lot done within the given time at the top. There is no slow cooldown period.

The current set of top party leaders—Deuba, Oli and Dahal in particular—have been in power for two or three decades, repeatedly assuming the country’s top executive position.

Article 216 (7) of the Constitution of Nepal says a person elected mayor for two terms will not be eligible to be a candidate in future municipal elections. Article 215 (7) has a similar provision for chairpersons of rural municipalities.

The constitution also has a two-term limit for President.

While all other top governing posts come with fixed terms, there are limits on how many times the prime minister, chief ministers, ministers, and lawmakers can serve.

This allows politicians to occupy office for as long as they choose, preventing the leadership handover to the next generation.

In the view of Mighendra Bahadur Karki, executive director of the Centre for Nepal and Asia Studies (CNAS) at Tribhuvan University: “Leaders who know that their peers, even junior colleagues, may someday be their supervisors may be more thoughtful of their behaviour. Poor behaviour and status anxiety might be reduced, increasing the room for collaboration.”

If senior leaders know that they need to bow out of the government or the party after a particular time, they are more likely to train and promote junior leaders to take their place, Karki told the Post. “This in turn will cultivate a healthy political culture.”

But he warned that the question of term limit is not straightforward. “The exit policy, if it is to be implemented, should be system-centric rather than targeting particular leaders.”