The Rush to Become a “People’s Leader”: Movement Legitimacy or Rapid Political Branding?
Lucky Chand
Nepal’s recent political transition has produced an unusual political spectacle. Individuals who, only a few months ago, were known mainly within limited social, professional or campaign circles have suddenly begun presenting themselves as national leaders amid protest, political transition and institutional uncertainty. Their supporters describe this as the emergence of a new generation, while critics see it as an opportunity created by circumstances. The debate has now reached the point where some are being described as “people’s leaders.” But such a title cannot simply be declared. It requires time, public trust, political struggle, institutional contribution and measurable results in government.
A movement may bring someone close to power, but it does not automatically establish lasting public legitimacy. Social media popularity, street support or political momentum after a movement can provide an initial source of legitimacy. But leadership that fails to improve the daily lives of citizens cannot preserve that legitimacy indefinitely. If cooking gas remains scarce, farmers cannot obtain fertilizer, inflation raises household costs, employment opportunities remain limited and young people continue leaving the country, new leaders cannot escape responsibility by blaming every problem on the old political order.
A convenient pattern is emerging in current political discourse. The gas shortage is blamed on one party, the fertilizer shortage on another, corruption on civil servants, controversial decisions on judges, inflation on traders, unemployment on industries and youth migration on manpower companies. Earlier institutions and political forces certainly bear responsibility in many of these areas. But once a new government assumes power, the central question changes. It is no longer only about who made mistakes in the past. It is about who now holds authority and who is responsible for solving the problems.
Being in government does not mean gaining a permanent platform from which to criticize previous governments. Power means assuming responsibility for supply management, market regulation, employment policy, administrative reform, action against corruption, security, public services and political accountability. The failures of the old political system cannot become a permanent exemption for new leadership. If new leaders emerged as a reaction to past failure, they must prove themselves through results rather than slogans.
The Gen Z movement reflected deep dissatisfaction with the old political structure, corruption, incompetence and a crisis of representation. It gave a new generation political space and moral capital. But the conclusion that the old forces failed does not prove that the new forces are automatically capable. Politics and governance are separate tests. The ability to express anger on the streets is not the same as the ability to run a state. Moral capital gained through protest expands when governance delivers results and gradually erodes when it does not.
Political legitimacy itself has different layers. A movement can provide moral legitimacy. An election provides a mandate. Governance establishes legitimacy through performance. Confusing these forms of legitimacy creates political illusion. Declaring someone permanently approved by the people simply because that person participated in a movement or obtained office afterward risks bypassing the democratic test. Genuine public endorsement is demonstrated through elections, accountability and sustained performance.
Various allegations and political narratives have also linked Nepal’s new political leadership with the IRI, American institutions, the Dalai Lama or other external actors. Such sensitive claims should not be treated as established fact without evidence. If there are questions about foreign funding, institutional connections, political influence or networks, they should be examined through documents, financial records, formal meetings, programme structures and credible investigation. The claim that foreign actors engineered everything is weak without evidence. At the same time, insisting that questions about foreign influence should never be raised is equally unhealthy.
The debate over foreign influence must not obscure the domestic responsibilities of the current government. Whether Nepalis can obtain cooking gas, whether farmers receive fertilizer on time, whether jobs are created, whether inflation is controlled and whether corruption is punished are questions that must be answered in Kathmandu. If those in power continue searching for external explanations for every difficulty, the new order risks becoming the old political culture in a different form.
The Gen Z martyrs’ memorial programme, the presence of controversial religious figures, the nature of the event and the disagreement it triggered within the ruling side have raised another question. Martyrs deserve respect, but their names should not become instruments for manufacturing political legitimacy. The pain of bereaved families and injured protesters cannot be addressed through ceremonies alone. Real respect comes through treatment, rehabilitation, justice and meaningful responses to the governance issues for which the movement demanded change.
New leadership must also uphold higher standards in public language and political conduct. Power should make leaders more restrained and responsible. Treating criticism as personal hostility, scolding colleagues, portraying questioners as enemies of the movement or narrowing the space for disagreement does not represent new politics. The strength of democratic leadership lies not in suppressing criticism but in listening to it and improving decisions.
Politics is not merely performance. The way leaders speak, answer in parliament, deal with the administration, tolerate critics, clarify decisions and deliver results are all tests of leadership. If the politics of a new generation wants to become an alternative to the old, differences in age, style or slogans are not enough. It must also demonstrate a different institutional culture, greater transparency, stronger accountability and better governing capacity.
Nepal does not currently need new political titles as much as it needs results. Citizens need reliable cooking gas supplies, farmers need fertilizer, young people need employment, markets need effective regulation, corruption requires punishment, administration must function and justice must remain credible. New leaders cannot indefinitely shift all these responsibilities onto the old state structure. If those in power claim credit for achievements, they must also accept responsibility for failures.
The road to becoming a genuine people’s leader is not short. A movement can open the door, popularity can provide momentum and political circumstances can deliver office. But what ultimately sustains leadership in history is performance, public trust and the test of time. The most important lesson new political forces should learn from the old parties is that public confidence cannot be preserved forever by blaming others for failure. In the end, history remembers less how power was acquired than what was done with it once it was obtained.
