Boardrooms to Ballots

In mid-October, an unusual development caught the country’s attention: a group of prominent business figures announced the formation of a new political party. At its helm is Dinesh Prasai, a professor of political sociology, joined by high-profile members such as Birendra Bahadur Basnet, Executive Chairperson of Buddha Air. The Gatisheel Loktantrik Party (GLP) is now preparing to contest the general elections scheduled for March 2026.

Among the founders, Basnet has drawn the most attention. Though discussions about the party had been quietly underway for months, the approaching election deadline accelerated the decision-making process. For both the business community and political observers, his entry into politics is the story that stands out.

Business leaders have increasingly taken the political reins in Nepal, joining a long list of figures who have journeyed from the boardroom to Singha Durbar. Basnet is only the latest—hardly the first, and likely not the last.

Before him, Nepal’s only Forbes-listed billionaire, Binod Chaudhary; construction magnate Bikram Pandey; medical education entrepreneur Sunil Sharma; and tourism entrepreneur Rajendra Bajgain had all served in Parliament. In the last parliamentary election, 15 businesspeople, including Chaudhary, Pandey, Sharma and Bajgain, won seats through the first-past-the-post system. Eight of them are construction entrepreneurs. Of these lawmakers, nine represented the Nepali Congress (NC), two each came from the CPN-UML and CPN (Unified Socialist), and one each from the Janata Samajwadi Party (JSP) Nepal and the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP).

Sharma won from Morang-3 on an NC ticket, while tourism entrepreneur Bajgain secured Gorkha-1 and remains active in the party. Pandey, owner of Kalika Construction and a senior RPP leader, entered Parliament from Chitwan-3 in 2022 after losing to former CPN (Maoist Center) Chairperson Pushpa Kamal Dahal in 2017.

Unlike his predecessors, who joined established political forces, Basnet is charting his own course—building a new political force from the ground up.

While the phenomenon of business tycoons entering politics is global, in Nepal it raises questions about priorities and intent. Critics often ask whether such leaders will serve the public interest or use political power to expand their business empires—a suspicion that has trailed nearly every business figure entering Nepali politics.

Internationally, prominent business leaders have assumed political roles. Donald Trump is serving his second term as President of the United States, Michael Bloomberg served as New York’s Mayor, Silvio Berlusconi became Prime Minister of Italy, and Elon Musk has hinted at political ambitions.

Political analysts agree that diverse professional backgrounds can enrich politics, but only if strong safeguards prevent conflicts of interest. What matters, they say, is ensuring decisions are not shaped by personal or corporate gain.

GLP Charts a New Political Course

According to Chairperson Prasain, the GLP has adopted a deliberately structured leadership model: one chairperson and five general secretaries, and the rest as Central Committee members. Notably, the chairperson and general secretaries will not contest elections, leaving Basnet, one of the central committee members, eligible to run.

Piyush Kayastha serves as general secretary in the new political party. Kayastha, an agricultural expert with years of experience working with farmers in eastern Nepal, has been promoting farm mechanization and was also involved in European Union-backed rural development projects.

Basnet brings business and a reputation for organizational efficiency through his stewardship of Buddha Air—a household name in Nepal’s aviation sector.

The party’s manifesto offers a sharp critique of contemporary politics, describing it as oppositional, self-serving, and disconnected from the public. It promises a new kind of politics rooted in creativity, thoughtfulness, and integrity.

“If politics in the upcoming elections continues to be oppositional and driven by professional self-interest, Nepal will fall into deep darkness,” the party’s document warns. “Escaping this hole will require great effort and sacrifice from the nation.”

The GLP calls for honesty, sacrifice and innovative thinking. “Let us pursue thoughtful and creative politics. Let us practice honest politics. Let us practice the politics of sacrifice,” it adds.

To distinguish itself from Nepal’s traditional political machinery, the party combines business insight, educational expertise, and social responsibility. Youth participation and leadership are central to its vision. Its priorities include job creation, candidate selection through primaries, and quarterly online disclosure of party finances to ensure transparency. These reforms aim to curb careerist politics, foster innovation, and leave a lasting institutional legacy.

The party has set strict internal rules: no member may hold the same position for more than two terms; after 16 years in any party committee role, a member cannot be appointed to another post; party committee officers and holders of public office remain separate; and no individual may serve more than twice as minister or prime minister.

“We have prohibited patronage and dependent politics,” the manifesto states. “We will not have any class-based organizations or full-time party workers. If we receive less than 20% of votes, we will not join the government.”

By combining business, academia, and social responsibility, the GLP seeks to redefine political engagement in Nepal. Whether this approach resonates with voters remains to be seen, but the party has positioned itself as a fresh alternative in a landscape long dominated by tradition and entrenched interests.

Business Figures in Nepal’s Electoral Landscape

Following the 2006 People’s Movement, Nepal’s private sector has lobbied political parties for greater representation. Since then, the interplay between business and politics has strengthened, becoming a persistent feature of the country’s electoral landscape.

The entry of business leaders into politics gained momentum after the 1990 People’s Movement, which ended the Panchayat system and opened political space to individuals from diverse sectors. Business leaders used this opportunity to influence policymaking, often aligning with political parties to protect their interests while contributing managerial expertise.

One prominent pioneer of this trend is Binod Chaudhary. Chairperson of the Chaudhary Group, he entered the first Constituent Assembly in 2008 representing CPN-UML under the proportional representation (PR) system. He later joined the Nepali Congress in 2017. After two PR terms, he achieved a direct election win in 2022 from Nawalparasi West, defeating senior politician Hridayesh Tripathi.

Similarly, Bikram Pandey, owner of Kalika Construction and senior RPP leader, entered Parliament from Chitwan-3 in 2022, after losing to CPN (Maoist Centre) Chair Pushpa Kamal Dahal in 2017.

Today, business figures are affiliated to both established and emerging parties. Binod Chaudhary, Umesh Shrestha, Sunil Sharma and Indra Bahadur Baniya are affiliated to the NC, while Moti Lal Dugar and Devi Prakash Bhattachan are with the UML. Similarly, business figures maintain close ties to Maoist Center supremo Pushpa Kamal Dahal. The Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) counts DP Aryal among its business-linked members, while the RPP includes leaders such as Bikram Pandey.

While only a few business leaders occupy frontline politics today, many entered through proportional representation during the Constituent Assembly years. Business influence was even visible under direct monarchy, with assistant minister appointments reflecting close ties between politics and business.

Experts say that business involvement in politics is not inherently problematic. Nepal’s private sector has long participated in public affairs. But concerns arise when political office is used to secure personal or corporate gains.

“Anyone can enter politics—whether from business or other professions. The real problem in Nepal is the rise of kleptocracy: a deepening nexus between politicians and businesspersons that fuels policy-level corruption. Business is essential for the economy, but when entrepreneurs enter Parliament solely to expand their interests, it harms governance and national welfare,” said political analyst Vijay Kanta Karna.

Over time, the partnership between business and politics has evolved into a powerful nexus. While it brings managerial expertise and investment-friendly policies, it also enables elites to influence legislation for their advantage, risking the sidelining of public interest.

Cartels, Corruption, and Compromised Oversight

From secret pre-tender meetings to special tax breaks, business leaders and politicians in Nepal have often collaborated for mutual benefit. Major contractors frequently act like a cartel, fixing bids and leveraging political connections to win high-value government projects.

Investigations show that only a handful of powerful companies consistently secure the largest construction contracts. The collusion between business leaders and politicians is an open secret. Since the 2011/12 VAT scam, when 518 companies were found guilty of fake billing and tax evasion, little substantial investigation into private-sector fraud or corruption has occurred.

Experts note that political connections often prevent or weaken legal action. Major scandals—including the Lalita Niwas land scam, the Sudan scam, the Omni Group medical supply case, and the Giribandhu Tea Estate case—implicated high-profile figures, yet none faced meaningful punishment.

“This happened because oversight bodies have been deliberately weakened through collusion between politicians and businesspeople,” said Shri Hari Aryal, former chairperson of Transparency International Nepal.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, the firm Omni Business Corporate International Pvt. Ltd. was awarded large contracts for medical supplies under urgent conditions, bypassing proper tendering.

Political actors gained influence or backing, likely in return for favorable treatment.

Another scandal involved a land-swap allowing Giri Bandhu Tea Estate Pvt Ltd to exchange large tracts of land under preferential terms. Political actors adjusted rules to favor the company, securing financial or political gain in the process.

Aryal emphasizes that syndicates and cartels dominate markets from airlines to cement to iron rods, undermining competition and harming consumers while enriching a few powerful players.

Lessons from Abroad

Business expertise in politics can yield positive results. In India, Nandan Nilekani, co-founder of Infosys, chaired the Aadhaar project, creating the world’s largest biometric ID system. Strong oversight ensured that public benefit was prioritized without conflicts of interest.

In Nepal, however, business leaders often use politics to serve personal interests. Political parties rely heavily on funding, elections are costly, and wealthy businesspeople see politics as a tool to protect their industries. Political backing shields them from legal consequences, while control over markets prevents competition.

By contrast, in the US, business figures such as Elon Musk, who publicly supported Donald Trump, remained subject to robust institutional checks. Contributions were transparent, legally compliant, and carefully monitored, reducing the risk of conflicts of interest.

“Unchecked business involvement in Nepal allows elites to consolidate power, shape policy for private gain, and restrict competition,” said Karna.

In Nepal, motivations for businesspeople entering politics are often transactional. “Political parties rely heavily on funding, and elections are extremely expensive. Wealthy businesspeople see joining political parties as a way to influence policies affecting their industries. In return, politicians secure financial support for their campaigns. Over time, business leaders have learned that aligning with political forces often protects them from legal or regulatory consequences, as major parties frequently collude with powerful business groups. Even wrongdoing is less likely to be penalized if backed by political connections,” Aryal said.

Another motivation is market control. Established business houses in sectors such as construction, education, and manufacturing often leverage political influence to prevent new or innovative competitors from entering the market. By shaping regulations and policy decisions in their favor, they maintain dominance and limit competition.

In contrast, cases like Donald Trump’s interactions with business figures such as Elon Musk illustrate a different dynamic. Musk publicly supported Trump during his campaigns, offering endorsements and media attention. However, these connections did not involve bypassing regulatory institutions or manipulating rules, because US oversight bodies remained robust. Campaign contributions were transparent, officially reported, and legally compliant. Unlike in countries where business backing directly translates into policy capture, here the support was visible, accountable and did not result in allegations of undermining institutional checks for private gain.

“While business expertise can benefit governance when properly regulated, in Nepal the system often allows elites to consolidate power, influence policy for private gain, and restrict competition,” Karna said. “This highlights the dangers of unchecked business involvement in politics.”

Balancing Business and Politics

Businesspeople should not be barred from politics; their expertise can benefit governance. Yet strong norms and rules are essential to protect the public interest. Proportional representation (PR) seats should not be misused to accommodate business interests, and elected business leaders should avoid committees where conflicts exist.

“For instance, PR seats, intended to give deserving individuals and underrepresented groups a voice in parliament, should not be compromised to accommodate business interests. These seats are meant to balance political representation and social equity; allowing business leaders to occupy them without proper justification undermines the spirit of democracy,” said Aryal.

Similarly, if businesspeople are elected to parliament, they should not be appointed to committees or positions where there is a direct conflict of interest with their commercial ventures. For example, a major industrialist should not serve on a parliamentary committee overseeing trade, industry, or taxation policies that directly affect their own businesses. Clear regulations and party rules must ensure that public service comes before personal profit, Karna added.

Party statutes need amendments outlining rules on conflicts of interest, committee assignments, and proportional representation. Political courage is required to implement these reforms, even against powerful elites.

Failing to enforce these norms leads to youth dissatisfaction, protests, and market distortions. Karna notes that economic disruptions often stem from collusion between business and political elites.

Ultimately, the responsible participation of business leaders in politics requires reforms, safeguards, and a culture of accountability. With these measures in place, Nepal can harness private-sector expertise while preserving fairness, competition, and public trust. Democracy and development can go hand in hand—but only if public interest comes first.

This article was first published in the November 2025 edition of New Business Age magazine.