Nepal parliamentary election campaign season began on February 16, 2026, launching the final sprint toward a March 5 national vote that follows a deadly anti-corruption upheaval and a caretaker-led political reset. The immediate consequence is policy uncertainty: the next coalition could quickly reorder fiscal priorities, change infrastructure sequencing, and reset the tone toward investors and donors in a fragile economy.
The election is widely described as the first since last year’s protests toppled the previous government. Multiple reports also underline that the campaign opens amid deep public frustration with repeated government changes and stalled job creation, while new and younger political forces attempt to challenge long-established parties.
What’s happening and when
Nepali parties and candidates formally launched nationwide campaigning on February 16 for parliamentary elections scheduled for March 5, 2026. Reporting describes the vote as Nepal’s first since deadly anti-corruption protests in 2025 that forced a change at the top of government and ushered in an interim administration to oversee the election.
Reuters reported on February 13 that the country is heading to the polls after recent anti-corruption unrest that left dozens dead and was followed by the resignation of Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli. Separate reporting based on AFP described interim Prime Minister Sushila Karki speaking ahead of the campaign launch and presenting the election as decisive for the country’s direction.
Why it matters for budgets, capex, and the pipeline
The political story is obvious: who forms the next government. The economic story is what the next cabinet does in the first 100 days.
Fiscal priorities can move fast after a reset
Nepal’s politics are coalition-driven, and coalition negotiations tend to come with rapid re-trading of spending priorities. A new governing arrangement can accelerate visible projects, delay less popular ones, or repackage capital plans to match campaign commitments.
For markets, the key issue is predictability. Even if headline fiscal numbers do not swing sharply, a reordering of which projects get funded first can change contractor cash flows, import demand, and local credit conditions.
Infrastructure decisions are political as much as technical
Large infrastructure commitments are typically spread across multiple budgets and ministries. When leadership changes, so do the bottlenecks: approvals, land acquisition tempo, procurement sign-offs, and the willingness to renegotiate terms.
In practice, this is where investors and lenders feel politics most directly. A project can exist on paper for years; what changes after an election is whether agencies are pushed to issue tenders, clear payments, or revisit contracts.
Investor sentiment hinges on stability and execution
Reuters highlighted long-running instability—frequent government changes since Nepal became a republic—as a backdrop to the election. That instability matters because it shapes risk pricing: the more often policy direction changes, the more investors demand higher returns or shorter commitments.
The campaign itself can also affect sentiment. Parties may promise quick action on corruption and jobs, but businesses often look for signals about administrative continuity: whether tax enforcement becomes unpredictable, whether procurement rules are tightened consistently, and whether agencies are empowered to execute.
Political backdrop shaping the campaign
Two dynamics are converging.
Post-protest anger and a credibility gap
The campaign is taking place in the shadow of deadly protests framed around anger at corruption and elite impunity. That context raises the stakes for whoever wins: voters will be watching early decisions on enforcement, appointments, and how public contracts are handled.
The uncomfortable reality is that protest-driven change does not automatically translate into better service delivery. If new leaders cannot show visible improvements—jobs, basic services, or cleaner procurement—the backlash can return quickly.
Old parties face challengers and splintered competition
Reuters reported that a large field of parties is contesting the election and described public disillusionment, especially among young people. That fragmentation can produce two opposing outcomes: a stronger reform mandate if challengers consolidate, or a more complex coalition if votes scatter.
Either way, coalition math will matter as much as campaign rhetoric. A narrow, multi-party coalition can struggle to pass budgets smoothly, while a clearer mandate can speed up approvals.
What to watch between now and March 5
1) Coalition signals and red lines
The single most practical indicator for policy direction is which parties appear willing to govern together and what they demand in exchange—especially control of finance, infrastructure, and home affairs portfolios.
2) The first commitments on procurement and anti-corruption enforcement
Campaign promises are cheap; procurement rules are not. Watch for concrete pledges on tender transparency, audit powers, and whether agencies will be insulated from political interference.
3) Budget posture and near-term liquidity decisions
Markets will watch whether leaders talk about expanding spending quickly or prioritizing stability. Even without a formal budget rewrite, early directives on arrears clearance and project sequencing can move the economy.
Nepal’s March 5 vote is being sold as a choice about governance after a protest shock. For the economy, it is also a decision about how quickly the state can translate political legitimacy into predictable rules, executable capital plans, and confidence that does not evaporate with the next coalition reshuffle.