Is It a Political Strategy? Why Balen Shah and Rabi Lamichhane Are Campaigning Separately
As Nepal approaches another important election season, political activities across the country have increased. Among the most discussed developments is the unique campaign style of two popular national figures, Balen Shah and Rabi Lamichhane. Although they are part of the same political movement and have similar reform goals, both leaders are holding their political roadshows on different routes. This has raised a significant question among voters and political observers: Is this a smart political strategy, or is there something else at play?
The answer seems to be connected to modern campaign planning, public engagement strategies, and the changing landscape of Nepali politics.
Rising Public Curiosity and Media Attention
In traditional Nepali politics, top leaders usually campaign together to show unity and strength. Joint rallies and shared stages have been symbols of political solidarity for a long time. However, Balen Shah and Rabi Lamichhane’s choice to campaign separately has challenged this norm.
As their independent roadshows travel through different districts, social media, news outlets, and public forums are buzzing with discussions about their approach. Some supporters view it as innovative and efficient, while critics question whether it reveals internal differences. However, this curiosity has worked in their favor by keeping both leaders in the public eye.
Instead of weakening their image, the attention has boosted voter interest and engagement.
One Party, Two Paths, One Vision
Although Balen Shah and Rabi Lamichhane travel different routes, they share the same ideology and political goals. Both are part of the reform-focused agenda of the Rastriya Swatantra Party, which highlights transparency, accountability, and governance centered on the people.
Their separation is not about division; it’s about expansion. By working side by side, they can reach more districts, communities, and demographic groups during a limited campaign period. This helps the party maintain a strong presence across the country instead of focusing influence in just a few areas.
As a result, the party gains double outreach without doubling costs.
Different Leadership Styles, Complementary Strengths
They are working together to communicate with voters by their individual (but complementary) leadership traits.
Balen Shah tends to focus his campaign on the practical aspects of government (e.g. addressing discipline, infrastructure development, efficiency), preserving & developing urban environments, and implementing results-based management. These issues appeal mainly to younger voters, business people and people living in urban areas who are looking for obvious indicators of progress.
In contrast, Rabi Lamichhane approaches his campaign through emotional appeals and a social conscience. As an advocate for the public good and a journalist, he speaks passionately about issues (e.g. corruption, justice, civil rights). Rabi’s interactive style of campaigning appeals greatly to rural voters, working-class people and first-time voters.
The candidates are running separate campaigns so they can allocate more resources towards educating voters who are aligned with their respective messages.
Strengthening Local Leadership and Candidates
The separate campaign model provides additional benefits to local candidates, as representatives of the party compete in several constituencies with [Balen] and [Rabi]. These candidates attract many voters who want to see national leaders come to their constituency. Therefore, many of these voters will also get to see their local candidate and take note of them. The result is that new candidates will gain notoriety and respect almost immediately.
Additionally, by bringing their own notoriety to local campaigns, Balen and Rabi help build a political network among party members, making it possible for party members to establish a strong political leadership base over time.
MeanWhile You Can Read this
A Smart Use of Time and Resources
Political organizations must adhere to strict timeframes and budgets when it comes to running electoral campaigns, especially when organizing large rallies with multiple parties involved which generates a massive amount of logistics, security, and finances. By using separate but joint campaign paths, political parties reduce the number of logistics issues, streamline their productivity, and can therefore:
- Obtain faster access to remote locations
- Have fewer problems managing crowds at events
- Coordinate more effectively with local campaign teams
- Hold more frequent political campaign events
Manage professionally and effectively, thus demonstrating values and practices that today’s voters find important for political organizations.
Turning Curiosity into Political Advantage
In politics, one of the easiest sources of power for an individual is through the combination of the public’s curiosity and the word “WHY” being the initial thought or question of the public when observing a political campaign. “Why are they campaigning separately?” has become a conversation piece amongst patrons of tea shops, in online forums, and in the community at large.
By not attempting to stifle the continued conversation regarding this separate campaigning, the party has allowed for continued discussion to naturally occur. The act of continuing to talk about/debate or analyze this issue allows for people to be able to stay engaged with the campaign throughout the entire election period.
Thus in many instances, the curiosity itself has now also become a form of indirect advertising for the party.
A New Model of Political Maturity
Leaders at the pop level of political systems across the world frequently compete for recognition and clout, leading to conflict within themselves; as well as rivalries externally. The actions of Balen Shah and Rabi Lamichhane represent a completely different model.
By trusting in their respective abilities while functioning autonomously, the two men demonstrate political maturity and demonstrate mutual respect for one another. Their collaboration is indicative of trust, not distrust of one another. Their actions also provide a clear message: The focus of leadership is collective achievement, as opposed to promoting oneself.
This collaborative model will resonate with the electorate due to their wanting governance based on issues instead of personality.
Impact on Nepal’s Political Culture
In addition to reflecting the evolution of political culture in Nepal, the distinct strategies employed by Balen and Rabi are meant to respond to the expectations of many potential voters–younger people, digital media users, and urban professionals–of flexibility, transparency, and accessibility from their leaders.
Through the use of deliberate road shows, social media updates, and one-on-one interactions with voters, Balen and Rabi have challenged and changed the way political communication is conducted in the 21st century. They have also moved away from rigid organizational structures and embraced more flexible and responsive forms of leadership.
This trend could ultimately lead to new methods of organizing political campaigns throughout Nepal in the future.
Challenges and Risks
Though the strategy offers numerous benefits, it does come with some degree of risk. Each separate campaign will need to be very well-coordinated internally so that any inconsistencies in messaging or public disagreement between the two leaders do not appear to be indicative of division.
Of equal importance is the potential for supporters to make unfounded comparisons between the leaders, creating a false sense of competition. Therefore, both leaders must work to reinforce unity and common goals regularly.
To date, both leaders’ consistent messaging and public collaboration have been successful in minimizing both of these types of risk.
Strategy Over Separation?
Is this a political tactic?
The information makes a convincing case otherwise. It is clear that Balen Shah and Rabi Lamichhane have not separated from each other out of some ideological difference, but rather due to intentional design. Their competing campaigns afford them the opportunity for greater reach, increased local leadership, more efficient use of resources, and, ultimately, greater public engagement. They represent a younger generation of Nepali politicians who value planning more than showboating, teamwork more than competitiveness, and results more than rhetoric. Even though they are on different roads, their objectives will ultimately lead them to a more fair and accountable political process in Nepal.
