Nepal's politics is once again at a crossroads of hope and doubt. The collaboration between Kathmandu Metropolitan City Mayor Balen Shah and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) President Ravi Lamichhane is being interpreted by many as a 'sign of a new era'.

This collaboration has been seen as a glimmer of new hope for Nepali society, which has been trapped in a cycle of the same faces, the same promises, and the same disappointment for decades. Perhaps it has raised hopes that politics will no longer be confined to the confines of lineage, faction, and power sharing.

But amidst this enthusiasm, an old, but more serious question arises—is the appearance of new faces a guarantee of change?

History has warned us. The so-called ‘new’ forces have not emerged for the first time in Nepal. The democratic wave after 2046, the people’s movement of 2062/63, and the alternative political forces that have emerged in recent years—all came with the promise of ‘change.’ But over time, there are many examples of many of them merging with the same structure, the same tendencies, and the same power-centric thinking. Therefore, today’s hope must be not only emotional, but also rational.

Political theorists have always warned—ideologies and institutions are more important than individuals in politics. Max Weber considered ‘charismatic’ leadership to be powerful but unstable. Charisma can attract crowds, but without an institutional system, it cannot turn into long-term rule. Today, the same test is beginning in Nepali politics—can the new leadership travel from charisma to institutions? There is little hope.

There is hope—alternative politics is now taking steps from street slogans to the responsibility of governance. There is hope—a political culture that can communicate with the people, listen to questions, not consider criticism as an enemy, and admit mistakes is beginning.

But along with hope, there is also doubt—which should not be suppressed by the crowd of enthusiasm. Popularity itself is not a policy. Social media support and the applause of the crowd can win an election, but running a state requires vision, patience, and institutional understanding.

Today, resentment towards the ‘old faces’ is natural. Oli, Prachanda, Deuba—these names have become symbols of failure for many citizens. But the question is—will the country automatically move in the right direction if these faces are removed? Or is there still a danger that the same style, the same centralized power, and the same greed for power will return to the empty space they left behind, under a new name and a new language?

The problem was not just individuals. The problem was in the political culture—where individuals are stronger than institutions, agreements are more important than policies, and popularity is considered more important than responsibility. If the new power also gets involved in propaganda than decisions, slogans than policies, and momentary popularity than long-term plans, then change will once again be limited to posters and speeches.

The question of political ideology also arises here. Nepal's old politics was divided into clear ideological poles—leftist, democratic, and monarchist. But the alternative politics of the latest generation seems to focus on 'performance' rather than ideological declarations. This is a trend that is in line with modern world politics. Hannah Arendt warned—if politics is limited to administrative efficiency alone, it weakens the question of values ​​and ideals. Governance may work, but it may lose direction.

The geopolitical context cannot be ignored either. Nepal is a small nation located between two rising superpowers. The balance of power between India and China, Western influence, and regional competition directly affect our internal politics. As Henry Kissinger said, the leadership of a small nation should make decisions based on strategic understanding rather than emotion. Whether that diplomatic maturity has developed in the new political powers is still an open question.

Today, the expectations among the people are very high. This expectation is both an opportunity and a warning for political powers. Those who are being given a vote of confidence today, the same expectations will ask the toughest questions tomorrow. Whether the political maturity to face that day is ready or not will be decisive.

Political awareness does not mean opposing everything, nor does it mean getting carried away by emotions and raising slogans on social media. Criticism without understanding the context and without studying is not awareness—it is only ignorance presented with confidence. I am not against Gen-G. I am against political rumors spread without political education and understanding.