Why Has the Message of Public Opinion Not Been Understood?

Continuing its coalition with the Communist Party of Nepal (UML) before the Janajati uprising, the Nepali Congress recently concluded that the provincial government leadership did not operate as per prior agreement, deciding to break the coalition. This has once again stirred national politics. Constitutionally, government change is a natural political process.

However, in a democracy, political decisions should not only be assessed constitutionally but also through public opinion, political ethics, democratic culture, and long-term national interests. Therefore, the main question today is not who forms the government but how political parties interpret the message given by the people in the name of change.

In recent years, public dissatisfaction with Nepali politics has crystallized into institutional form through the Janajati uprising, leading to the rise of the Rastriya Swatantra Party as a new political force. Yet, the two-thirds majority government committed to change shows no signs of transformation, a fact confirmed by its policy and budget for Fiscal Year 2083/84.

More clearly, the government’s neglect towards the poor and marginalized has triggered a series of suicides. The Janajati uprising was not targeted at a single party but stemmed from dissatisfaction with old political cultures. Unnatural coalitions for power, repeated government changes, corruption, power-sharing, opportunism, and disregard for public opinion have forced youth to question the political system. They demanded not just new faces but a new political character.

In the midst of this popular pressure, the Nepali Congress felt the need for self-reflection, as evidenced by its special general convention. At that time, even columnist Pankti Kar acknowledged the social media and various articles pressuring national parties to transform leadership. Though the CPN (UML) and Maoist parties subdued reform issues, the Congress’s special general convention resulted accordingly. Its aim was not only leadership change but also political culture transformation — fostering new energy, youth participation, policy-based politics, transparency, and accountability to the people. The convention gave Congress an opportunity to move toward new directions.

Yet, as discussions arise again about altering power dynamics under the guise of provincial government leadership change, serious questions emerge — if power-centered politics repeat, why was the special general convention necessary? What is the justification of leadership change if actual change does not occur? Did the public expect a new mindset or just a new version of the old games?

Nepal’s political history teaches us that the people desire political culture transformation more than mere power shifts. Since the 1990 People’s Movement, through establishment of republic, constitution-making, and recent elections, the public has repeatedly voted for change. But each transition was followed by the same power-centric tendencies, same culture of division, and same unstable coalitions, causing deep public disillusionment—especially among youth questioning traditional politics.

The primary message of the Janajati uprising was that politics should be based on public trust, not on power calculations. It clearly told political parties that winning elections is no longer sufficient; political character must win people’s confidence. Any party today must place this public message at the center of their decisions.

In Nepal, the notion that staying out of power equals political failure has not yet fully disappeared. The Congress must change this mindset to lead a new political culture.

The Nepali Congress pledged transformation through its special general convention, emphasizing generational transition, policy-based leadership, organizational reform, transparency, and protecting democratic values. Many activists viewed this as the Congress’s second renaissance. However, the true test of political declarations lies in actions, not words.

Now, as instability returns with new provincial government leadership shifts, this could weaken the message of Congress’s commitment. The public will question: if ultimate goal is power, why hold the special convention? If decision-making style remains unchanged, what does leadership change mean? Is the change only in faces or also in political culture?

Hence, Congress faces a crucial choice between short-term political gain and long-term political interests. History sometimes offers moments where foregoing immediate benefits can secure lasting trust. Currently, Congress appears at such a crossroads.

Opposition’s role in politics is essential, not a weakness, of democracy. A strong opposition ensures government accountability, amplifies public voice in parliament and debates, and proposes alternative policies. Many democratic countries have traditions of parties strengthening themselves in opposition after election defeats.

Yet Nepal still clings to the belief that being out of power is political failure. Only by changing this can Congress lead a new political culture.

The real measure of political change is not who leads the government but how much improvement citizens experience in their lives. Nepali society’s main concerns include employment, good governance, education, health, agriculture, economic crises, and youth migration abroad. Unfortunately, political debate often remains limited to power equations, ministry divisions, and government formation and dissolution. This deepens the public perception that politics focuses more on power struggles than on their problems.

If the Nepali Congress focuses again on forming new coalitions just to lead the provincial government, the public may regard the special convention’s message of change as a failure. Change does not mean merely finding new paths to power but establishing a new political culture for power utilization.

The special general convention offered Congress a historic opportunity, beyond leadership change, to revive its historic identity. It carries the responsibility to restore the contemporary relevance of B.P. Koirala’s democratic socialism, moral politics, national consensus, and people-accountable governance. If the party fails to embrace this philosophy in current decisions, change will be limited to formality.

Congress must remember that the public regards the party not merely as a political entity but as one connected to Nepal’s democratic movement, thus holding it to higher political ethics. Consequently, the party’s decisions can shape not only politics but the direction of democratic culture.

Obtaining provincial leadership may be a temporary achievement, but accepting instability, distrust, and frequent coalition shifts could exact a heavy political price. Government formation success may last months, but loss of public trust endures much longer.

The younger generation observes politics closely. Social media instantly subjects every decision to public scrutiny. Non-transparent agreements, unnatural coalitions, and opportunistic decisions can no longer be hidden long. Therefore, political parties must now be more accountable to the public than ever. This new reality is the true message of the Janajati uprising.

Parties respecting public opinion sometimes need to prioritize trust over power. In democracy, lost trust weakens power, whereas winning trust ensures opposition parties become future alternatives. The Nepali Congress must evolve from merely a power-winning party to a responsible democratic force guiding the nation’s political direction. This will secure the party’s long-term future and strengthen democracy.

This decision will determine not only government stability but Congress’s credibility, democracy’s durability, and the trust of the new generation in politics.

A political party’s credibility is determined not by rhetoric but by decisions made under difficult circumstances. When choosing between power and political principles, the party’s true character is revealed. Nepali Congress is currently under such a test. If it can prioritize public opinion over immediate power, the transformation journey initiated by the special convention will be meaningful. Otherwise, repetition of old power-centered practices will weaken the message of change.

Nepal’s democracy is now under appraisal by the new generation. Youth support no party solely based on history but evaluate current performance and future vision. Thus, Congress must not only honor its illustrious past but also carry present-day responsibilities. It must reflect in actions, not just words, the democratic socialism of B.P. Koirala, the sacrifice of Ganeshman Singh, the moral politics of Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, and the commitment of Girija Prasad Koirala.

Frequent changes in provincial governments, alliances, and short-term political interests raise questions about federalism’s effectiveness. Therefore, Congress should emphasize strengthening public confidence in the federal democratic system over merely leading provincial governments.

The country needs a responsible opposition. Opposition’s role is not limited to resisting the government but includes supporting right decisions, challenging wrong ones based on facts, and proposing alternatives. If Congress plays a strong, dignified, and constructive opposition role at federal and provincial levels, public trust will naturally grow. People desire stability and maturity, not opportunism.

The special general convention provided a new direction for Congress—not just leadership change but transformation of working style. Therefore, the main question today is not who forms the government, but whether the new leadership will continue the old culture or lay foundations for a new political culture. The answer to this will determine the historic significance of the convention.

Ultimately, seriously reviewing national politics and respecting public opinion is the Nepali Congress’s first duty. Playing unstable coalition games again under the pretext of provincial government formation harms the party. By becoming a strong, responsible, and constructive opposition at both federal and provincial levels, Congress can strengthen democracy, hold government accountable, and regain public trust—benefitting not just the party but the entire democratic system.

The Janajati uprising demanded change, and the special general convention expressed commitment. Now, it is in Congress’s hands to translate that commitment into practice or revert to old trends. History rarely offers such opportunities repeatedly. Today’s decisions will shape not only the government but Congress’s credibility, democratic maturity, and the trust of new generations. Will Congress institutionalize change by respecting public opinion, or weaken the justification for change in pursuit of short-term power? This is the critical political question.

(Pokhrel is a political analyst and sociologist.)