By Our Reporter
The CPN-UML’s current strategy under KP Sharma Oli reflects a party caught between nostalgia for past authority. Oli insists the dissolution was unconstitutional and presents reinstatement as the only path to political stability. Yet this position appears increasingly disconnected from the prevailing mood among young Nepalis, who mobilized during the Gen Z protests demanding an end to corruption, better governance, and political accountability. They have mainly targeted three leaders- Oli, Deuba and Prachanda as they accused them of rampant corruption, nepotism and bad governance.
For this generation, the focus is forward-looking, not on restoring a dissolved parliament that represents the old political order, dominated by the parties headed by these three leaders. The call for reinstating the House of Representatives, dissolved by the Sushila Karki–led government after the Gen Z protests, is framed as a constitutional correction.
The timing of Oli’s push is also problematic. With House elections scheduled for March 5, pursuing reinstatement risks creating further political instability while consuming the party’s energy and resources.
Moreover, the party’s claim of widespread public support is questionable; while UML organizes rallies and local events, these often attract a traditional voter base rather than the younger, more dynamic electorate that the party needs to engage. Gen Z voters are unlikely to see reinstating the dissolved House as meaningful reform—they are looking for new leadership, transparency, and results.
The deeper challenge for UML lies within. The party’s leadership has long been dominated by entrenched figures, and the ongoing internal conflict over direction and succession signals a need for generational renewal.
Instead of focusing on restoring a parliament that may hold little legitimacy in the eyes of voters, UML workers and rank-and-file members should prioritize selecting young, dynamic leaders who can connect with the country’s youth. A leadership refresh could position the party to channel the energy of younger voters, rather than alienating them with moves that seem defensive or self-serving.
At its core, the debate over reinstatement versus elections highlights a strategic choice: cling to procedural technicalities and past power, or embrace transformation to reflect the demands of a new generation. For UML, failing to modernize risks both electoral losses and a further decline in relevance.
The party needs leaders who understand that legitimacy today comes not from overturning old decisions, but from presenting a forward-looking vision that resonates with the aspirations of Gen Z and beyond. In practical terms, building trust with young voters, demonstrating transparency in candidate selection, and promoting accountability could have far greater long-term impact than a legalistic attempt to restore a dissolved House.
The lesson is clear: a party’s strength is measured not by its ability to contest past dissolutions, but by its capacity to reform internally, win popular confidence, and offer credible leadership for the future. For UML, the choice between reinstatement and renewal is less a legal question than a test of political survival.
