Unless an uncontrollable situation arises due to a huge natural disaster, the general election scheduled for March 5 is now almost certain to take place. However, as Nepal moves toward the general election – being held almost two years earlier due to ‘Gen Z’ movement of September 8-9 – the campaign should have generated more intense debate on the country’s economic direction, private sector confidence, and preparedness for graduation from Least Developed Country (LDC) status.
Against the backdrop of the September 8-9 Gen Z uprising that shook the traditional political structure, political parties have already unveiled their election manifestos, although some named it manifesto, others pledges, or contracts. At a glance, these documents place economy, job creation, and investment at their center. However, practically, there is ample room to doubt the political parties’ capacity to implement what they promise. The doubt raises also as the parties neither reviewed nor self-assessed how much of their earlier manifestos were actually implemented.
For the first time in decades, this election is not confined to political doctrines, slogans, or ideologies. With Nepal set to graduate from LDC status in November 2026 – and to lose certain trade preferences – the manifestos do discuss how the state should engage with entrepreneurs, investors, and markets, and how the economy should be uplifted. Yet, these pledges tend to list ambitions rather than practical, credible, and implementable measures.
Political parties appear insufficiently serious about immediate steps needed to halt youth out-migration and to restore private sector confidence eroded after September 8-9, or about strengthening state institutions and developing systems. As always, populist rhetoric coated with a bit of polish and promises of magical transformation risk quickly disappointing youth, potentially triggering another uprising within a year or two, an outcome parties do not seem adequately alert to.
The Gen Z movement laid bare deep youth dissatisfaction over unemployment, corruption, bad governance, and elite capture of state institutions. And there are clear grounds to suspect that political parties have only in reaction begun portraying the private sector as the main engine of jobs and prosperity, rather than taking it seriously, and addressing the governance issue.
Moreover, parties do have separate views on September 8-9 Gen Z protest. Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist–Leninist) – known as CPN-UML – continues to describe the youth uprising as vandalism and focuses more on September 9. By contrast, Nepali Congress and Rastriya Swatantra Party – which calls itself new, despite having been in power at least twice in the past – argue that had youths not been shot and murdered on September 8 in the broad daylight, and had the then Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and his government admitted its mistake and resigned that very night, the destruction and attacks of September 9 would have been avoided.
These fundamentally different interpretations of September 8 and September 9 have also led the private sector to suspect that the March 5 election manifestos include economic recovery, industrial development, and job creation merely as box-ticking exercises.
Umbrella business bodies like Federation of Nepalese Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FNCCI), Confederation of Nepalese Industries (CNI), and Nepal Chamber of Commerce (NCC) have already warned that unless bilateral trade arrangements are secured and industrial competitiveness improved after LDC graduation, Nepali exports will face stiff competition. Yet, the manifestos remain largely silent on building competitive capacity or exploring alternative trade measures.
The manifestos also reveal distinct economic philosophies. The CPN-UML presents the most ambitious quantitative targets, pledging to expand the economy to Rs 200 trillion within a decade through large infrastructure and energy projects, and incentives for startups and the IT sector.
The CPN-UML, led by four-time prime minister KP Sharma Oli, again promises mega projects such as railways and metros – long pledged but never delivered – alongside popular distributive proposals including incentives for youth and startups, a $10,000 international transaction card for IT entrepreneurs, 10 GB of free monthly data for those aged 18–28, and zero-interest loans for women-led enterprises. With shrinking revenue base, the CPN-UML’s distributive promise seems hollow.
Likewise, its proposal to raise the minimum monthly wage to Rs 25,000 has drawn mixed reactions from industry. Industrialists argue that raising wages without productivity gains could wipe out small and cottage industries. Despite near-negative productivity levels among Nepali workers, wages have continued to rise, according to the private sector.
Nepali Congress prioritizes institutional reform over headline growth numbers, emphasizing wealth creation through the private sector, digital governance, and the rule of law.
Under the current leadership of Gagan Thapa, Nepali Congress has sought to re-establish itself as a business-friendly, liberal democratic force. Its manifesto commits to removing privilege based on political access, digitizing public services, and reducing administrative hurdles that raise business costs.
The party’s ‘Vision 10’ agenda targets digital service delivery, international branding of Nepali products, and transforming agriculture into a profitable profession. Its emphasis on merit-based appointments and institutional reform – which has earlier been controversial due to appointments in regulatory bodies – is seen by business leaders as a signal of long-term policy predictability, long considered a barrier to both foreign and domestic investment.
Nepali Communist Party pushes for a ‘socialism-oriented’ production model, prioritizing self-reliance, import substitution, and state-led investment in agriculture and hydropower.
The economic outlook of the Nepali Communist Party, which includes three former prime ministers, aligns with its ideological roots. Led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda,’ it proposes allocating 60 percent of the national budget to provincial and local governments to decentralize production and activate local economies. It also proposes import substitution using domestic raw materials and strict monitoring of public officials’ assets.
While such measures may appeal to accountability-seeking voters, the private sector warns that expanded regulation, mandatory social security contributions, and selective foreign investment policies could raise business costs and obstruct capital flows.
New forces like Rastriya Swatantra Party and Ujjyalo Nepal Party focus on market pragmatism and the digital economy, seeking to directly attract post-Gen Z voters and entrepreneurs.
The Rastriya Swatantra Party – accused of benefiting most from post-Gen Z discontent by hijacking the movement – has prioritized a ‘citizens’ contract’ over a lengthy ideological manifesto. It openly supports a capitalist, market-driven economy and argues that business activities should largely remain outside government control. Yet with party chair Rabi Lamichhane facing multiple cooperative fraud cases and the party fielding many controversial candidates, it still faces a long road to establish itself as a credible political party. Otherwise, like India’s Aam Aadmi Party – built more on populism, campaign against the corruption and noise than ideology – it risks a brief surge in one election only to fade by the next.
A party, whose chair is fighting fraud cases in court has further deepened skepticism among millions of cooperative victims with slogans about returning savings and ‘listening to’ rather than ‘jailing fraudsters’ or following the rule of law. While commitments to end political appointments in regulatory bodies and to bring whistleblower protection laws are welcome, the prominence of leaders like controversial Rabi Lamichhane, Kathmandu former mayor Balen Shah, who has yet to deliver visible, long-term achievements; and economist Swarnim Wagle, often accused of opportunism, has reinforced a personality-driven approach to elections and governance, raising questions about the party’s long-term ideological grounding.
The Ujjyalo Nepal Party, meanwhile, has attempted to carve a distinct identity through a limited but focused fourth Industrial Revolution agenda. They have proposed a Rs 10 billion startup fund, nationwide IT hubs, large-scale digital skills training, and comprehensive legal frameworks for data protection, cybersecurity, and AI.
They also have plans to develop multiple smart cities and expand power generation with private sector participation have made the party attractive to technology firms, energy developers, and non-resident investors.
Overall, when assessed against benchmarks raised by FNCCI, CNI and NCC – policy stability, access to finance, labor flexibility, and tax clarity – the manifestos present a mixed picture.
According to president of the CNI Birendra Raj Pandey, “political parties have incorporated private sector suggestions into their manifestos. Even if some are ambitious, economic issues are addressed.”
Implementation, however, remains a major concern for the private sector. Past manifestos were not bad either, the private sector notes, but parties showed little interest in implementation, turning them into mere paper promises. “Do the political parties walk the talk this time” is the key concern for private sector as once the result is out, by March 15 they will be busy fielding for government and coalition, as no single party is going to gain majority this time too.
Because even seemingly earlier ‘business-friendly’ pledges for SMEs, startups, and the digital economy have often gone unimplemented, the private sector prioritizes the rule of law and long-term policy and institutional stability. While large industries and infrastructure dreams stated in the manifestos are attractive, reducing policy uncertainty and labor cost risks is crucial for investors, according to them.
Thus, despite the abundance of promises, business leaders remain cautious. Their concern is not a lack of plans, but political instability, weak implementation, and vague economic policies that continue to erode investors’ confidence.
Therefore, as Nepal moves toward the March 5 election, the contest should not be limited to clashes of personalities or parties, but should also be a competition among economic models. Nepal’s ultimate economic direction – toward a liberal economy, institutional development, and policy reform – will be determined not by manifestos, but by translating promises into practical, business-friendly policies.
With the election signaling a fragmented political landscape and a coalition government, fears are growing that these manifestos may once again remain nothing more than pieces of paper because the private sector wants economic reform through legal and institutional reforms but the political parties are ‘offering them a bone.'
.
