4 min readMar 9, 2026 07:04 AM IST First published on: Mar 9, 2026 at 07:03 AM ISTBy Gaurav BhattaraiThe Outcome of polls in Nepal, unlike that of Bangladesh, suggests that the old guard is being swept away. A large number of new faces representing the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) are now part of Nepal’s parliament. Most people in Nepal would agree that these new faces did not win because of their political acumen — which, so far, has been limited — nor because of compelling rhetoric, but largely because of their showmanship. Yet, some claim that in their search for change and stability after the turmoil of September 2025, voters were drawn to these “new” faces. One might therefore ask: Were voters genuinely persuaded by the promises and potential of these entrants?AdvertisementTelevision commentaries and op-eds have interpreted the result as evidence of a magnetic pull towards a “new” political force. Only a few have questioned what is actually “new” here. The RSP not only contested previous elections but also joined coalition governments led by the very parties now dismissed as “old”. To sustain the dominant narrative, commentators highlight the emergence of new faces — not the novelty of the party itself. The “old versus new” dichotomy may sound appealing, but it is misleading. If voters were truly attracted to new faces, the turnout should have increased. Instead, it remained around 60 per cent, lower than in previous elections.A more plausible explanation is the deep-seated aversion toward the old guard. Public resentment toward traditional political forces stemmed not only from corruption and nepotism, but also from the dominance of an ageing political leadership. Anyone presenting themselves as young and new is seen as a challenger to a political culture tarnished by elite lifestyles and corruption scandals.This aversion did not arise suddenly. In fact, it developed within the old parties themselves, fuelled by complaints and media coverage of self-aggrandisement, nepotism, and patronage. Otherwise, how could influential parties like the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist–Leninist) (CPN-UML) and the Nepali Congress (NC) perform so poorly? The result suggests that many of their own supporters chose not to vote for them. Some reports have loosely compared RSP’s victory with that of the Maoists in 2008, but the contexts differ significantly. First, the current result reflects revenge voting, triggered when party cadres were denied tickets or when grassroots workers felt that unpopular candidates had been imposed upon them by the leadership. Second, factional rivalries encouraged voters to support candidates from other parties.AdvertisementLosses in constituencies traditionally dominated by the old guard also reveal how the general and special conventions organised by both CPN-UML and the NC before the election deepened internal divisions and discontent. Party members dissatisfied with the leadership effectively weaponised the ballot. In many cases, they even encouraged family members, acquaintances, and allies to vote independently. Although family-level polarisation over candidate preferences is not new in Nepal, it is now driven less by ideological commitment than by a broader anti-establishment impulse.Against this backdrop, the RSP’s electoral success places a heavy burden on its shoulders. The real challenge lies in moving from demagogic rhetoric to institutional governance. The absence of a strong opposition does not mean that the promised transformation will occur as quickly as scrolling through a reel. The structural challenges awaiting them in office may soon give impulsive voters reason to complain — and perhaps, to regret their choice.The writer teaches at Tribhuvan University, Nepal