A few months before the September 8 event in Nepal, I had been working on this article to reflect on the essence of Exit, Voice, and Loyalty (1970) by Albert O. Hirschman in the context of Nepal’s existing political system—particularly the culture within political parties that has long led to public dissatisfaction. I believe the recent events have given me even more reason to complete it.
Background
Before understanding the phenomenon, let me briefly explain Nepal’s political system. It is a multi-party democratic system with three major parties — the Nepali Congress, CPN-UML, and CPN (Maoist Centre) — which have alternated in power since 2006 through coalition governments. The first two parties have been active since the restoration of multiparty democracy in 1990, while the third came to power in 2006 after leading a decade-long civil war that ended the 250-year-old monarchy and introduced secularism in the country.
Nepal’s new constitution was promulgated in 2015 by the second Constituent Assembly, endorsed by around 90 percent of its members, with the involvement of these major parties and several regional groups. It introduced a federal system of governance with inclusion and proportional representation. The fourth-largest party, Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), was formed in 2022 as an alternative to the established political forces.
The September 8 movement, led by Gen Z, demanded an end to corruption and called for good governance—issues deeply rooted in Nepali society. The frustration and dissatisfaction witnessed that day reflected a defective political culture within these parties, which have failed to provide space for internal reform. This has translated into decades of poor governance and a lack of accountability at the national level.
Loyalty
According to Hirschman, some people remain loyal to an organisation and choose silence over protest, accepting the status quo despite dissatisfaction. This is clearly visible in Nepal’s political parties.
NC Vice President Gurung urges parties to change their lens to...
The leadership of the three major parties has remained unchanged for decades. The second layer of leaders, now in their 50s, have long waited for leadership roles but have been sidelined by the establishment. Party members, especially in the communist parties, tend to stay quiet, avoid questioning their leaders, and even deify them. They often defend their leaders against criticism, even when in government. Surprisingly, this trend has trickled down to younger, aspiring party members.
There are two main reasons for this. First, some have deep-rooted loyalty to their party and believe that criticism might weaken it publicly. Second, many are beneficiaries—directly or indirectly—of political connections in their professional, economic, or social lives, or aspire to such benefits. This makes them choose silence and remain loyal to the party and its actions.
Voice
Within a political party, voice is an essential element of democratic culture, enabling reform, sustainability, and continuity. Calls for reform have long been heard from young and second-tier leaders, particularly within the Nepali Congress. While internal debate is somewhat tolerated in that party, it rarely translates into concrete reform.
The culture of empowering backbenchers and encouraging open dialogue between party ranks is largely absent in Nepal’s political parties. As Hirschman suggests, when voices are ignored, members face two options: loyalty or exit—the latter being discussed below.
When internal voices go unheard, turning into silence, the cost is high—not only for the party but for the entire governance system—since these very parties are responsible for running the country.
Exit
The major question under exit strategy is whether there exists a competitive alternative that allows members to leave their party and join another with better political culture and governance standards.
In Nepal’s case, space for exit has been extremely limited for three reasons. First, there is a lack of viable alternatives, as most major political parties share similar governance cultures under different names. Second, there is fear of being labelled disloyal or opportunistic—a perception held by both party members and the general public. Third, many choose to remain loyal because they have invested their youth, time, and resources in a political party and lack the energy or motivation to start afresh elsewhere.
As a result, despite widespread dissatisfaction, members and voters continue to support the same parties, even while fully aware of the corruption and bad governance that persist within them.
The voice for alternative politics in Nepal had been growing for several years, leading to the formation of the Bibeksheel Party in 2017 and later the RSP in 2022, introducing new and relatively younger faces. Some individuals exited traditional parties to join these movements, and the public, hopeful for change, supported them—though not enough to bring them to power. The RSP emerged as the fourth-largest party in Parliament.
However, operating within Nepal’s coalition-based parliamentary system, RSP alternated between the government and opposition alongside old political forces. This limited its ability to fulfil the public’s hope for genuine good governance.
For decades, Nepalis have endured corruption and misgovernance—disillusionment passed from one generation to the next. Each generation fought its own revolution—1990 and 2006—believing that changes in political systems or constitutions would automatically improve governance and bring prosperity. Yet, the political culture within parties remained unchanged.
Even new parties and political systems inherited the same practices, perpetuating leader-worship and patronage. This culture has also permeated society, influencing public behaviour and expectations. Some leaders have resorted to nationalism to deflect blame for governance failures, pointing fingers at so-called “external forces.”
Disillusioned by the lack of opportunity and good governance, many young people have “exited” the country altogether—migrating abroad in search of prosperity. Today, Nepalis are increasingly sceptical of everyone—the good, the bad, and the ugly—fuelled by mistrust and intolerance, particularly after the events of September 7 and their aftermath.
The government has since been dissolved, along with Parliament, and a non-partisan caretaker government has been formed with a mandate to hold early elections.
Way Forward
In a multi-party democracy like Nepal, unless the phenomenon of voice is strengthened within political parties—enabling reform from within—the country will continue to experience recurring cycles of revolution, promises, and disappointment. Starting a new democratic culture within parties by empowering youth and ensuring their meaningful participation in leadership and governance structures is essential for improving performance, establishing accountability, and promoting good governance.
Since governance in Nepal remains in the hands of political parties, understanding and applying Hirschman’s framework of exit, voice, and loyalty within party structures is crucial. Institutionalising internal democracy and good governance from within will have a ripple effect on national governance. Hirschman’s insights, though written decades ago, remain relevant not only for Nepal but for all countries governed through party-based political systems.
The author is a career diplomat. Views are personal.
