The Roots of Volatile Public Opinion

# Muna Chand

Nepal’s politics is no longer moving merely through a routine cycle of changes in government or leadership. At a deeper level, the relationship between citizens and the political system itself is being redefined. Established political parties are finding it increasingly difficult to preserve their traditional support bases, while newer political forces have also struggled to convert their initial appeal into durable public trust. Rapid shifts in electoral preferences, sudden changes in support for political leaders, and sharp fluctuations in public debate all suggest that Nepal’s political opinion has become far more fluid than before.

It would, however, be a mistake to interpret this simply as political immaturity or an unstable voter mentality. The more important question is why citizens are so quickly searching for alternatives. The answer lies deeper than political slogans. It is rooted in household income, employment, public services, social security and confidence in the future. Rather than saying that public opinion itself has become unstable, it may be more accurate to say that traditional political loyalties have weakened. Increasingly, citizens are judging political parties not by their history, but by the changes they can see in their own lives.

Trust in Crisis

Nepal’s established political parties have long histories. They played important roles in democratic movements, the expansion of political rights, the establishment of the republic, federalism and broader inclusion in state institutions. But history is political capital, not a permanent mandate. A new generation is asking different questions. Instead of focusing primarily on what a party achieved three or four decades ago, it is asking what opportunities the state can provide today.

This is where the crisis facing traditional parties becomes evident. They may still have organizational networks extending from villages to the national level, but historical legitimacy alone cannot preserve public trust if citizens increasingly see those structures as mechanisms for managing positions, factions, candidacies and power rather than channels for solving public problems.

The central challenge therefore goes beyond leadership change. It concerns the culture of governance itself. How are decisions made? Is merit more important than political access? How is public money spent? Who accepts responsibility when institutions fail? These questions are increasingly determining political credibility.

The same dissatisfaction with established parties has created space for new political forces. New parties and leaders have successfully tapped into anti-corruption sentiment, frustration with traditional politics and the aspirations of younger generations. But winning a protest vote and earning sustained trust in government are very different tests.

It is relatively easy to identify the weaknesses of an old system. Governing a state is much harder. It requires managing budgets, laws, the civil service, federal institutions, the economy, diplomacy and institutional continuity. If new political forces fail to deliver within these constraints, they too can quickly become part of the very disappointment from which they emerged.

Nepal’s political competition is therefore gradually shifting away from the question of “old versus new” toward a more demanding question: who can actually govern effectively?

The Political Meaning of Unemployment

Employment is the deepest economic factor behind this political transformation. At the grassroots level, the primary concern of most citizens is not ideology but income security. Families educate their children, take loans and invest in skills, yet decent employment after graduation remains uncertain. Farmers lack reliable prices and markets. Small businesses struggle with weak demand, borrowing costs and unpredictable policies.

In such an environment, foreign employment has evolved from an individual choice into an economic strategy for millions of households.

Around 792,000 Nepalis received labour approvals for foreign employment in fiscal year 2082/83, illustrating the scale of this dependence. Foreign employment remains a major source of income for Nepal, but the continued departure of such a large share of the workforce cannot be regarded as evidence of successful domestic job creation. Nepal’s increasing reliance on remittances also shows how deeply migration has become embedded in the national economy.

This creates an important political contradiction. The country gains foreign currency but villages lose young people. Household incomes may rise while local production systems weaken. New houses may be built even as communities face shortages of productive labour. Overseas employment may provide opportunity for individuals, but continually exporting the country’s most energetic workforce cannot substitute for a long-term national development strategy.

Unemployment should therefore not be treated merely as an issue for the labour ministry. It is directly connected to political stability, social cohesion and national confidence. Public trust cannot be stabilized in the long term without creating meaningful economic opportunities at home.

Federalism, Social Media and the Changing Citizen

Any analysis of changing public opinion must also consider federalism. Since the introduction of the federal system, local governments have become the level of the state with which citizens interact most directly. Roads, drinking water, schools, health centres, agricultural services, local taxation and administrative services are experienced primarily through local institutions.

Effective local government can therefore reduce frustration with national politics. But when local institutions themselves appear opaque, weak or driven by personal connections, dissatisfaction spreads beyond a particular government or political party and begins to affect confidence in the political system as a whole.

Social media has added another layer of acceleration. It is not the root cause of public frustration, but it has become a powerful amplifier. An incident that once might have remained local can now become a national controversy within hours. Citizens can question governments and leaders immediately.

At the same time, social media can give greater visibility to emotion than evidence, immediate reactions over long-term policy, and outrage over reasoned debate. It can strengthen accountability while simultaneously intensifying volatility in public opinion.

Nepal’s social diversity makes this equation even more sensitive. Region, community, language or identity are not themselves causes of political instability. Problems arise when economic exclusion, weak public services or inadequate representation appear to be concentrated repeatedly within particular communities or regions.

If political institutions fail to address such concerns responsibly, economic frustration can gradually transform into identity-based political discontent. Inclusion, therefore, cannot be measured only by the number of representatives from different communities. It must also be reflected in equal access to opportunities, public services and the benefits of the state.

The Next Competition Will Be About Results

Both old and new political forces must now respond to this changing society.

An established party does not become irrelevant simply because it is old. Through serious self-correction, institutional reform and effective governance, it can rebuild trust. Likewise, a new party does not automatically become a long-term alternative simply because it is new. It must demonstrate institutional capacity, internal democracy, economic clarity and administrative competence.

Employment and production must be placed at the centre of the response. Nepal needs agricultural processing industries linked to reliable markets, energy-based enterprises, tourism connected more closely with local economies, export-oriented digital skills, easier access to finance for small and medium enterprises, technical education aligned with employment, and a stable policy environment for domestic production.

Such programmes should not be repeatedly renamed by each new government. They need to be developed as national economic priorities capable of continuing for at least a decade.

Policy predictability is equally important. Entrepreneurs will not invest confidently if they fear that regulations may change within six months. Young people will abandon competition if they believe political connections are more important than merit. Farmers will leave agriculture if they cannot trust the market. Citizens will lose faith in institutions if ordinary public services continue to depend on personal influence.

Political stability cannot therefore be measured only by who holds a parliamentary majority. Genuine stability depends on how much confidence citizens have in their own future.

That is the deeper message emerging from Nepal’s changing public opinion. Citizens are not merely searching for new faces. They are searching for a state that works. Increasingly, they are placing opportunity above speeches, results above declarations, and their future above inherited party loyalties.

The current fluidity of public opinion should therefore be understood not only as a political crisis but also as a transformation in political consciousness. The era in which established parties could rely primarily on history, or new forces could rely primarily on waves of dissatisfaction, is gradually fading.

The future political centre will belong to whichever force can convince unemployed young people that they have a future within the country, make the state more results-oriented from the local level to the centre, and give citizens credible reason to believe that tomorrow can be better than today.

Nepal’s path toward genuine political stability may ultimately begin with rebuilding that confidence.