–Dr. Pramod Jaiswal
Nepal’s current political contest increasingly resembles less a conventional election and more a referendum on KP Sharma Oli’s leadership. Long before ballots are cast, evidence suggests that Oli has already lost the psychological and strategic battle. A convergence of unfavorable geopolitics, internal party fragmentation, weak coalition prospects, rising youth discontent, and the absence of a credible political vision has placed him in a deeply disadvantaged position. This is not merely an electoral challenge, it reflects a broader erosion of political relevance.
Geopolitical Isolation
Oli’s foreign policy trajectory since 2015 has steadily narrowed his strategic space. Though he was once viewed favorably in New Delhi during Prachanda’s first tenure around 2008 to oust him from power, relations with India deteriorated sharply after the Madhes blockade. The mistrust that followed has never been fully repaired. Attempts at backchannel diplomacy, including meetings with Indian intelligence officials including RAW Chief Samant Goel, failed to restore political confidence.
At the same time, Oli’s inconsistent foreign engagements alienated multiple actors. His participation in China-led symbolic events, push for the BRI Cooperation Framework, ambiguous support for the US State Partnership Program (SPP), confrontational stance on the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), and participation in an anti-Japan parade in Beijing, despite Japan being Nepal’s major donor, created confusion about Nepal’s strategic direction.
Oli’s overreliance on China as a counterweight to India proved equally problematic. Beijing initially invested heavily in unifying the CPN-UML and Maoist Centre, viewing left unity as a stabilizing force. Yet Oli’s leadership style fractured that alliance. Despite repeated Chinese efforts to prevent the split, Oli bore much of the blame.
More revealing is China’s recent recalibration. Instead of engaging Oli directly, Beijing has increasingly interacted with second-rank CPN-UML leaders and figures aligned with Bidhya Bhandari. Some suggest China favored Bhandari as a potential unifier of left forces. This shift signals a quiet but important message: Oli is no longer perceived as a dependable political asset. His attempt to align electorally with Sher Bahadur Deuba only deepened Beijing’s discomfort.
As a result, Oli finds himself diplomatically isolated, distrusted by India, downgraded by China, and viewed skeptically by Western partners and donors.
A Fragmented Party Base
Internally, the CPN-UML is no longer cohesive. While Oli retained formal control during the party convention, deeper dissatisfaction persists. Leaders close to Bidhya Bhandari and Ishwar Pokharel represent a latent opposition. Cadres are divided over Oli’s centralized leadership, ideological base, governance record, and frequent tactical reversals. This fragmentation has drained grassroots enthusiasm. Elections are won not merely by leaders but by energized party machinery, and UML currently lacks both coherence and momentum.
A New Election Model: Youth, AI, Diaspora and Social Media
This election is unfolding under a fundamentally new campaign model, one where money and muscle power play a reduced role, while youth mobilization, digital platforms, AI-driven outreach, and social media dominate political engagement.
Nearly one million new voters have been added to Nepal’s voter list this year. Of these, more than 850,000 registered after the Gen Z movement, representing a politically awakened youth cohort. These young voters are not only numerically significant but also emotionally invested in change. They are digitally connected, politically charged, and less tied to traditional party loyalties.
Technology has further altered the terrain. Youth-led movements and newer political actors enjoy greater reach through social media, alternative media platforms, and AI-enabled messaging. The Nepali diaspora is also emerging as an influential force in this election. With a large number of young voters working abroad, many are actively urging their families back home to support RSP and Balen, amplifying his appeal through transnational networks and digital communication. Oli, rooted in conventional campaigning, struggles to compete in this rapidly evolving ecosystem.
This generational shift favors narratives of reform and disruption, areas where Oli appears weakest. The youth vote is increasingly shaping discourse, and its momentum is largely oriented toward keeping Oli out of power.
A Highly Polarized Political Environment
The election has become intensely polarized, not around policies but around Oli himself. It increasingly resembles old leadership versus emerging forces, traditional parties versus new actors, and stagnation versus change. In this framing, Oli represents continuity, not transformation. After serving three terms as prime minister, he finds it difficult to present himself as an agent of renewal.
Failed Coalition Strategy and Growing Insecurity
Oli’s failure to secure a viable pre-election coalition has further weakened CPN-UML morale. Desperate outreach to potential partners has produced limited results, reinforcing internal anxiety. Political isolation has bred insecurity, reducing bargaining power and exposing vulnerability rather than strength.
The Miscalculation of Attacking Balen and Youth Politics
Oli’s aggressive rhetoric toward Balen Shah and Gen Z activism reveals his psychological retreat. Instead of addressing youth grievances, he has framed movements as conspiracies against the state.
This approach backfires. Oli himself was prime minister during earlier unrest, making it difficult to shift blame. His emergency airlift to save his life during that period underscored institutional fragility. Years of sidelining party seniors and alienating state institutions appear to have eroded his influence within security and bureaucratic circles, evident in his inability to manage recent protests.
The Madhes Factor
Oli’s vulnerability is particularly pronounced in Madhes. Since the 2015 blockade, he has carried an enduring anti-Madhesi image. Though he made gains in the previous election, helped partly by constituency demographics, recent remarks by UML leaders have revived old resentments.
These statements have energized Madhesi youth opposition and increased sympathy for alternative leadership figures like Balen Shah. The symbolic possibility of a young Madhesi prime minister carries emotional weight, mobilizing voters who feel historically marginalized.
Absence of Vision and Ideological Ambiguity
Perhaps most damaging is Oli’s lack of a coherent development vision. Apart from personal attack on Balen, his campaign relies on familiar rhetoric of sovereignty and foreign interference, rhetoric that Nepali voters have heard for decades from communist parties. And. after three premierships, such messaging lacks credibility. Oli cannot convincingly promise transformation when previous terms produced limited structural reform. Ideologically, he remains ambiguous, having governed with Maoists, Nepali Congress, RPP, and others, suggesting political survival over principle.
Timing Is Against Him
Oli is increasingly surrounded by loyalists who rarely challenge him, trapping him in an echo chamber. His confrontational posture toward India narrowed diplomatic options, while strained relations with China reduced external backing. Internally, his authoritarian tendencies alienated cadres who once saw UML as a platform for collective leadership.
Grassroots frustration is growing. Many cadres now desire a reformed UML, free from geopolitical entanglements and centralized control. This mirrors Prachanda’s earlier decline, when he remained sidelined despite leading the largest party after the first Constituent Assembly election. Unfortunately, due to his past experiences with Oli, even Prachanda is no longer positioned to rescue him.
Conclusion
Taken together, geopolitical isolation, party fragmentation, failed coalition efforts, youth alienation, Madhesi backlash, technological disruption, and absence of vision, these dynamics reveal a leader in retreat. KP Sharma Oli did not lose because the election began. He lost because long before it began, he had already surrendered the political narrative, institutional trust, and public confidence.
Dr. Jaiswal is a Research Director at Nepal Institute for International Cooperation and Engagement (NIICE), Nepal’s leading think tank.
