Submit your Article

An abrupt incident that occurred in early September 2025 in Nepal was unprecedented on many levels. A peaceful protest, spearheaded by the country’s Generation Z (Gen-Z), evolved into a nationwide outcry against deep-rooted corruption, systemic nepotism, and the controversial ban on social media. The demonstrations, held on September 8 and 9, resulted in unexpected human casualties and extensive socio-economic damage, sending shockwaves throughout the country’s political landscape. The gravity of these events prompted the formation of an Interim Government tasked with stabilizing the country, restoring public trust, and conducting elections for members of the House of Representatives on March 5, 2026. However, a clear and sustainable roadmap—particularly one ensuring elections on the stated date—remains elusive. Amidst this uncertainty, a window of opportunity has opened: one where critical reforms may be introduced, institutional weaknesses addressed, and the aspirations of a new generation taken seriously. Key demands The protests marked a pivotal moment in Nepal’s modern political history—not only because of their scale, but also due to the clarity of Gen-Z’s demands. This generation, born and raised in the post-monarchical, federal democratic era, is no longer willing to accept outdated practices in governance. Their demands include the establishment of good governance through investigations of all corruption cases from 1990 to 2025 by a competent and trusted body. They have called for the elimination of nepotism and favoritism, as reflected in social media trends against “nepo kids” and “nepo babies.” They have also expressed their interest in overhauling the current political system and ending long-lasting political leadership. They favor a directly elected executive model and demand comprehensive reform of the electoral system. Their concerns include ensuring transparent and merit-based appointments to high-level positions such as judges, commissioners, and ambassadors. They have also called for a review of the federal structure—particularly the distribution of powers between the federal and provincial levels—along with administrative reforms. These demands are both ambitious and constitutionally complex, and responding to them will require careful legal, political, and institutional maneuvering. Constitutional provisions and legal constraints The Constitution of Nepal provides a degree of flexibility for reform but also contains clear limitations in addressing Gen-Z’s demands. The Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) is the designated body to investigate corruption, while adjudication lies with the Special Court. There is currently no constitutional provision for an alternative authority to carry out such wide-ranging corruption investigations. In terms of structural reforms, the Constitution requires a two-thirds majority to approve any change in the form of government, electoral system, or federal structure. Amendments impacting the provincial structure or exclusive provincial powers (as per Schedule 6) require approval from the respective Provincial Assemblies. The Constitution does allow for referendums, but only with a two-thirds majority approval of Parliament. These processes, while theoretically feasible, are heavily dependent on the cooperation of established political parties—the very institutions whose legitimacy has been called into question by Gen-Z protesters. Emerging challenges in a volatile political climate The September 2025 events have placed Nepal’s political status quo under considerable strain. Established political parties, many of which feel threatened by the scale and popularity of the Gen-Z movement, have shown reluctance to endorse investigations or constitutional amendments that may jeopardize their authority. Several key challenges lie ahead. First, political resistance: the established leadership is unlikely to support any reforms that could lead to their displacement or reduced influence. Second, while the Interim Government has been mandated to conduct elections on March 5, 2026, this may not be feasible without the full cooperation of political parties. Continued protests and ideological conflicts between Gen-Z activists and political traditionalists could deepen societal divides. Additionally, differences among Gen-Z groups on various issues have also surfaced, potentially weakening their collective strength. Implementing some of Gen-Z’s demands, such as the direct election of the executive, would require major constitutional overhauls. If the transition falters or fails, it could open the door to authoritarian alternatives—a scenario that would be catastrophic for democratic consolidation. Revisiting issues such as federalism and secularism without national consensus could also ignite deeper communal or regional tensions, potentially recalling the decade-long domestic conflict. Building a constructive roadmap: Immediate and medium-term steps​​​​​​​ To stabilize the political environment and move toward meaningful reform, Nepal must embrace a carefully coordinated and inclusive strategy. The Interim Government must demonstrate impartiality and competence, ensuring legitimacy across all demographic and political lines. To address the damage caused during the protests, a transparent and independent body should be formed to investigate the events of September 2025, including loss of life, property damage, and underlying grievances. Financial and technical support from development partners will be crucial for implementing systemic reforms and ensuring a credible electoral process. Launching an inclusive, multi-stakeholder dialogue on constitutional amendments—particularly electoral reform, federal competencies, and leadership structures—is essential. There is broad understanding among Gen-Z activists and political thinkers that constitutional reform should follow the elections; therefore, dialogues on reform priorities must begin now within civil society, Gen-Z networks, and political parties. To ensure good governance, a trusted commission must be established to investigate historic corruption cases, without overlapping with the jurisdiction of the CIAA. Robust dialogue among Gen-Z leaders, political parties, civil society, and government bodies should be institutionalized through town hall meetings, one-on-one dialogues, public interactions through media, working groups, and policy forums. Clear mechanisms should also be developed to include Gen-Z in political discourse—whether through advisory roles, youth assemblies, or integration into party reform processes. Question of timely elections: Possibilities, pitfalls, and consequences​​​​​​​ Despite uncertainties, there are several positive indicators regarding the upcoming election. The Election Commission of Nepal (ECN) has committed to the scheduled timeline. The Ministry of Finance has confirmed the availability of necessary resources, and most political parties have expressed interest in participating. However, significant challenges could derail the process, such as continued agitation from both Gen-Z and traditional parties, unmet youth expectations, leadership disputes within parties, and corruption probes linked to the September events. If these risks are not addressed, the election may either be postponed or produce outcomes unacceptable to large segments of the population, particularly the youth. Role of Civil Society: The contribution of NLS and GEOC Civil society organizations such as the Nepal Law Society (NLS) and the General Election Observation Committee (GEOC) have a critical role to play in facilitating this transition. Both organizations have been involved in the observation of several elections in the past. The NLS, in particular, has supported the constitution-making process by providing independent forums for dialogue on key issues, policy guidance, and capacity development. In the current context, their contributions can include: Building coordination mechanisms among Gen-Z, political parties, and the government; Supporting electoral preparations through legal advice, technical expertise, and observation; Promoting public dialogue through workshops, interactions, and publications; Advising on constitutional reforms, including drafting model amendments; Monitoring corruption and ensuring transparency and public trust; and Mediating conflicts and preventing escalation through peaceful negotiation platforms. These organizations can serve as neutral venues bridging competing forces, upholding both legal integrity and democratic aspirations. Conclusion: From crisis to opportunity Nepal stands at a critical juncture in its democratic evolution. The Gen-Z protests have not only exposed long-standing governance failures but also ignited a national conversation on constitutional and governance reform and the future of leadership. This moment presents an opportunity to establish a people-centric, democratic, accountable, transparent, and ethical system of governance. The Interim Government, political parties, civil society, and international partners must now seize this moment—not to suppress dissent, but to channel it constructively. By embracing transparency, accountability, and inclusivity, Nepal can emerge from this period not only with a renewed political mandate but also with stronger democratic foundations for a prosperous future. (Pradhan is Chief Executive Director of the Nepal Law Society and Secretary General of the General Election Observation Committee.)