The recent political maneuvers of Nepal’s Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) have triggered a heated debate among the public. During the height of the Gen-Z movement, the party appeared to align with calls for dissolving parliament and mass resignations. Yet today, the same leadership is advocating for protecting the constitution and preserving parliament. Such dramatic shifts in position within a short span of time have raised serious concerns over both political consistency and ethical credibility.

In its latest “immediate proposal,” RSP declared support for the selection of a prime minister through all-party consensus, provided that the decisive participation of the Gen-Z generation is ensured. The proposal further emphasized the continuation of Nepal’s bicameral federal legislature under Article 83 of the constitution, fresh parliamentary elections within six months, and the formation of independent commissions to investigate the violent crackdown of the September 8 (2082 Bhadra 23) protests, related human rights violations, property attacks, and major corruption cases dating back to 1990. Acting president Dol Prasad Aryal announced this as the party’s official stance.

However, growing frustration on the streets and across social media paints a different picture. Critics argue that RSP “jumps wherever immediate benefits appear,” prompting some to label the party a “political prostitute.” Far from being a mere insult, this expression reflects widespread disillusionment with what many see as the party’s erratic and opportunistic behavior.

This flip-flopping has raised two fundamental questions: Is RSP being honest to its founding manifesto and ideals? And does it have the capacity to manage the mandate delivered by the people’s movement? If not, the party risks betraying the very trust it claims to uphold.

While disagreements and debate are natural in politics, instability in fundamental values, ethics, and commitment to citizens signals a lack of maturity. Observers argue that RSP’s current behavior is neither politically sustainable nor morally defensible.

For this reason, the “political prostitute” label has become more than a provocative slogan—it is a stark symbol of deep public resentment and growing distrust. The key question now is whether RSP will redefine its political direction or continue down an opportunistic path that only entrenches public skepticism.