Following the Money Behind the Vote
As the country moves toward the general election scheduled for March 5, 2026, the issue of transparency in campaign financing continues to haunt political parties, affecting established organisations and newcomers alike.
However, no political party has dared to implement transparency despite the pressing challenges of governance, which are inextricably linked to political funding. In a democracy, the public legitimacy of political parties is measured by their transparency and integrity. The public’s initial assessment is largely accurate: political parties are fostering corruption through the clandestine deals they strike to secure funding.
It is widely observed that political parties pursue every possible avenue for financing, including secret agreements, forced donation drives, and tactics of bargaining or blackmail. Ruling parties, in particular, generate funds through political appointments and commissions from public procurement. Their lavish party offices and the lifestyles of their cadres, who benefit from easy money provided by their leaders without engaging in productive employment, reflect this reality. The ‘nepo-baby’ social media movement exposed significant evidence that triggered the Gen Z uprising of September 8-9, which demanded corruption control, good governance, and the lifting of social media bans. Yet, despite the sacrifices of these young people, there have been no major reforms in governance or anti-corruption efforts.
“It is a pity that there is no such introspection among the political parties. They are quite reluctant to listen to the voices of the youth and make a course correction,” states Samana Lawati, a Gen Z activist.
Democracy for sale!
Very recently, political parties submitted their lists of candidates for the proportional representation system to the Election Commission. This has not only marred the spirit of inclusive representation envisioned by the Constitution but can also be interpreted as an attempt by political parties to sell democracy itself. The controversy surrounding proportional representation reveals much. They are transforming politics into a lucrative business that requires neither major investment nor risk. While the objective of proportional representation is to bring marginalised, disabled, and voiceless people to the forefront of policymaking, political parties have instead prioritised the privileged, the super-rich, and the elite. It is easy to understand the nature of the deals these parties have struck.
Furthermore, leaders have misused their authority by incorporating family members and relatives of those in power. “Those are foolish who seek morality in politics,” Former Foreign Secretary Madhu Raman Acharya mentioned sarcastically. “Such a coercive use of power is the direct result of a corrupt mentality.”
The Election Commission has set expenditure benchmarks for candidates ranging from Rs. 2.5 million to Rs. 3.3 million, depending on the remoteness and convenience of the constituencies, mandating that such expenses be handled through banking transactions. However, candidates treat these limits as mere formalities, especially as political party leaders themselves occasionally speak out about the increasingly exorbitant cost of elections.
Krishna Bahadur Raut, Secretary at the Election Commission, has stated that the expenditure thresholds determined by the commission are sufficient to cover transportation and promotion-related logistics.
However, election observers have noted that a major portion of political parties’ election spending is directed toward influencing voters, providing food and beverages, and mobilising volunteers. Moreover, some candidates were exposed distributing cash to buy votes in previous elections.
“Unless people are independent in exercising their democratic rights, democracy remains weak in those countries,” says Ujwal Adhikari, who served as an observer for the Election Observation Committee Nepal in previous elections. “Political parties and their candidates must adhere to the sanctity of elections and compete based on vision, agendas, and programmes.”
“Political parties attempt to influence voters by attracting them with immediate gains, which does nothing more than undermine the wisdom of the people,” opines Lok Raj Baral, a seasoned political scientist. “Excessive election expenses by candidates should be curtailed through provisions such as the right to reject or the right to recall,” he stresses.
Cronyism, malgovernance, and regulatory capture
Major corruption deals do not occur within government offices, rather, these secret agreements are forged outside of public institutions. Once elected, politicians begin implementing these deals, tailoring policies and programmes to ensure benefits for their sponsors, which inevitably results in malgovernance. The quality of public services deteriorates because political leadership compromises standards, and bid documents are designed to serve the interests of those who provided their funding.
Political party leaders have been grooming cronies, creating clubs that invite other businesspeople to seek political protection regardless of any mistakes or crimes committed. This cycle leads the public to despair, ultimately driving many to leave the country following such negative experiences.
The significant corruption scams of the last 5-10 years serve as clear evidence of this malgovernance and corruption. Notable examples include the Nepal Airlines aircraft procurement, Giribandhu Tea Estate land privatisation, Bhutanese refugee scam, and the new stock exchange licence fiasco. Other prominent cases involve the Nepal Telecom billing software maintenance procurement, the Mobile Device Management System (MDMS) in telecommunications, and the allocation of Rs. 50 million budgets to electoral constituencies. Additionally, the health equipment procurement scam during the Covid-19 pandemic, alongside the Lalita Niwas and Litchibari land grab scams, further illustrate the depth of the issue.
On the other hand, the attempts of political cronies to capture regulatory bodies, such as the Securities Board of Nepal, Nepal Telecommunications Authority, Nepal Rastra Bank, and Nepal Insurance Authority, have become visibly apparent. These cronies have begun targeting the leadership of regulatory agencies to extort regulated institutions, treating them as milking cows.
Malgovernance and regulatory capture have distorted the level playing field for private sector actors, forcing them to seek out power brokers to get work done or to establish relationships with political parties, particularly the leadership of major political forces, according to Rajendra Malla, Former President of Nepal Chamber of Commerce.
“People experience hassles at every service counter, whether for land registration, licensing, taxes, business approvals, or welfare benefits. When services are slow, discretionary, or transactions are cash-based, corruption becomes the routine rather than the exception,” states anti-corruption activist Dipesh Ghimire.
To combat corruption, political parties must be clean, transparent, and guided by the public interest rather than private benefit. A high degree of integrity and accountability must be maintained. When politics is financed by opaque, cash-based networks, policy corruption becomes rampant, and governance is held hostage by the financiers of the ruling parties. As Nepal has practiced a coalition culture for a long period, corruption has become the hidden glue bringing major political parties together to serve in the government time and again.
Pork barrel politics
Political parties have placed themselves above the law, politicising every sector from schools, colleges, and universities to ministries, constitutional bodies, and the judiciary. Even institutions ideally designed for checks and balances have aligned with this trend. Parliamentary oversight has lost its integrity as lawmakers compromised for the sake of constituency development funds, which have increased exponentially over the years. Pork-barrel politics prevailed, leading to the blatant misuse of hard-earned taxpayer money. Consequently, taxpayers were deprived of the state facilities intended to help their businesses grow and create national employment.
Politicians have allocated resources to projects based on personal interest, while investment returns are largely overlooked or ignored. “The view tower projects atop hills were nothing more than fantasies. State resources were extensively misused. Furthermore, dreams of mega-projects like the east-west rail and inland waterway connectivity were sold without basic studies on project viability against cost,” shares Dr. Swarnim Wagle, an acclaimed economist and Vice Chair of Rastriya Swatantra Party.
“Due to a lack of vision within the political leadership, Nepal squandered the opportunities that emerged after the decade-long armed conflict ended in 2006 with the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Accord between the state and the former Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist),” he added.
Surendra Pandey, Former Finance Minister and leader of the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist–Leninist), has opined that the capture of political parties amidst weak intra-party democracy is a major factor behind the rampant corruption in the country. The tendency of major political leadership to accumulate wealth and power to remain unshakable in their positions is the underlying reason for malgovernance and the rise of cronies in the economy.
Gagan Thapa, General Secretary of Nepali Congress, once stated that prime ministers keep themselves busy with cadres, unproductive inaugurations, and meetings or seminars, rather than allocating time to fix governance, deal with major national issues, or address the difficulties of the people. “The prime minister, as head of the government, is simply unaware of what his or her government is doing to produce results that address the concerns of the people, fix governance, create a conducive investment climate, and transform the country by attaining development goals.” he reiterated.
Exorbitant election costs: Rs. 5,000 per individual vote
The government has estimated that conducting the election will cost Rs. 27 billion. A significant portion of this expenditure is dedicated to security, with nearly Rs. 20 billion expected to be spent on security arrangements to ensure free and fair polls. Out of the total Rs. 27 billion, Rs. 6.73 billion is allocated to the Election Commission, while Rs. 9.15 billion is earmarked for the mobilisation of temporary police. Additionally, Rs. 4.02 billion is allocated to Nepal Police, Rs. 3.44 billion to Nepal Army, and Rs. 3.33 billion to Armed Police Force (APF).
In the previous general and provincial assembly elections, the Election Commission urged political parties to keep their expenditures within a threshold of Rs. 55 million. However, due to a lack of effective monitoring, candidates chartered helicopters even to reach developed constituencies and spent lavishly on promotions and voter influence. Candidates were also exposed offering economic incentives, promises of political appointments, and jobs during their constituency visits. Despite these violations of election rules and codes of conduct, the Election Commission took no significant action beyond issuing a few warnings.
It remains difficult to track and rationalise the expenses of political parties and candidates because they lack transparency, accountability, and a commitment to fair competition. Nevertheless, studies conducted by seasoned observers and experts after the 2017 local elections found that political parties and candidates spent Rs. 50.96 billion, excluding state expenditures. When state costs were added and divided by the total voter turnout, researchers concluded that a single vote cost Rs. 4,923, a staggering expense for Nepal, whose GDP was below Rs. 3 trillion at the time.
Former Chief Election Commissioner Bhoj Raj Pokharel emphasised that such rampant spending must be controlled. “Apart from necessary state expenses to conduct free and fair polls, candidates must be disciplined enough to limit their spending to the commission’s threshold,” he states. He added that democracy can only be strengthened through transparency, accountability, trust in democratic competition, and a high degree of integrity among political leaders and civil servants. He concluded that curbing the illicit funds mobilised during elections requires a strong commitment from political, bureaucratic, and parliamentary leadership, otherwise, corruption control will remain nothing more than a talking point in political speeches.
Ending the rot
Many believe that rent-seeking politics is the primary barrier to good governance and corruption control. To ensure political funding becomes transparent, all funds provided to political parties should be channelled through banking transactions. According to anti-corruption activists, state agencies should address undeclared sources of funding by applying Money Laundering Prevention laws.
Hari Bhakta Sharma, Former President of Confederation of Nepalese Industries (CNI), stated that donations to political parties must be voluntary and accepted only via banking transactions. “This will usher in transparency for political parties, as these funds will appear on their balance sheets. Consequently, accountability and integrity can be promoted,” Sharma notes. “If political donations are channelled through banking transactions, they are reflected in the balance sheets of both the provider and the receiver.”
Likewise, to control corruption in government services, digitisation should be expedited in a mission mode. Establishing digital footprints in public services and eliminating cash transactions are expected to prevent corruption, as a digital trail makes it easier to track the expenditure of every rupee.
Birendra Bahadur Basnet, a member of the newly formed Gatishell Loktantrik (Gatilo) Party, shared that it is difficult for newcomers in politics to contest elections because major political parties have incentivised their cadres by misusing state and community-level resources. The all-party mechanisms in various committees, from the community to the central level, serve as ready-made systems to seize resources under political protection.
Political leaders often attempt to disorient the debate by blaming the electoral system for the high cost of elections, trying to escape the reality of their own lack of transparency and accountability. Some parties have been advocating for an entirely proportional election system, citing the high cost of first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting. However, these claims are disingenuous and reflect an unwillingness to be held accountable by making funding sources transparent. In fact, this hazy political funding has been barring youth and new individuals from joining politics and contesting elections.
