Submit your Article

Among the 10-point agreement signed by the representatives of the GenZ and the Federal Government, one of the most exciting is the creation of the GenZ Council.

Setting up such a body offers the biggest opportunity to establish a more direct, participatory and deliberative form of democracy in the country, enabling the new generations of citizens to have a direct say in how Nepal is run. But it is going to be vital to design this new body in the right way, ensuring that this will be an institution that is effective and meaningful rather than being tokenistic.

First off, let’s start with what the GenZ Council should not aspire to become. The country already has the National Youth Council that is neither particularly effective nor truly representative. To be fair, this body was never intended to become a platform to give youths a voice and amplify their demands.

Rather, it was created to promote youth empowerment through programs and initiatives. This is why the GenZ Council should demark and distinguish itself and should resemble a chamber or assembly, a permanent forum for discussions and deliberations by the youths and for the youths of the nation.

Therefore, it would be much more appropriate to design it as a “GenZ Assembly”, an institution that cannot only complement but also strengthen the current parliamentary system in place. Ideally, this new body should embrace key principles of deliberative democracy where citizens rather than just those elected have a real say.

For this reason, the GenZ Council should free itself from the cumbersome burden of elective politics. As we do know, liberal democracy based on elections has a lot of problematic issues and must be supported by more direct forms of deliberative mechanisms. Consequently, it is also important that the new GenZ Council shuns party politics. Its members would be individual youths acting and importantly, deliberating on their own, without any political affiliation.

But what does the word “deliberation” mean in the context of GenZ Council? To start with, we are not talking about binding deliberations. Deliberations can be seen as detailed propositions that, following a rigorous process of debate based on expertise and knowledge, would be voted by the members of the council. Ensuring that voting will only happen after a clear process of logical discussions is paramount.

How could this work in practice? Let’s take as an example, a possible deliberative process around the pros and cons of lowering the minimum marriageable age. Each member of the GenZ Council would have the right to table a motion, in practice, a policy idea, that, in a follow up step, would be analyzed and discussed mandatorily. In our example, a member would propose a change in the current law related to the minimum marriageable age. 

Similar and connected motions could be clubbed together in a holistic fashion and discussed. After these first two initial phases, submission of a motion and its initial discussion, a first round of voting would occur where the members would decide to bring this motion forward.

What does it mean?

If a motion is voted to be brought forward, it will be further discussed, elaborated and deliberated in the form of a proposition, basically a proposal that at the very end will be finally voted by all the members. In this final stage of the deliberative process, members of the GenZ Council will have to vote if, to them, it makes sense or not to lower the minimum marriageable age.

Finally, a proposition that is voted favorably will be submitted to the federal government in the form of a recommendation that would have to either accept or reject it. The federal government would commit to officially respond in written form and also officially to each of the recommendations sent by the GenZ Council in the House of Representative, the lower chamber of the Parliament. The Federal Government should also include mandatorily explaining why some of these might have been rejected.

In future, the propositions voted by the GenZ Council could be made even mandatory but this would require more time for the country to fully understand and welcome deliberative democracy practices, basically accepting the idea of a new form of more participatory decision making.

In the immediate, the GenZ Council could also have the authority of providing feedback to each bill being formulated by the legislative. A key aspect would be how to ensure a fully representative and inclusive representation of the youths in the Council. In the field of deliberation, sortition (lottery) is a key aspect.

At first instance, it might appear as something bizarre and strange but around the world, it is how deliberative democracy happens also by taking advantage of software programs designed for the purpose. A pragmatic approach could be used to establish the Council for the first time, one that will not entirely rely on sortition. The Federal Government would nominate 25 percent of its members based on certain criteria. We can imagine this as a sort of quota that would ensure the participation of the current leaders of the GenZ movement where all major groups are included. Ideally, each Provincial Government or Assembly could also appoint a quota but this is tricky and would make things complicated also because of network/patronage related issues.

Then what about the remaining 75 percent seats? They should be allocated in an open and transparent way. As daunting as it might sound, all youths could apply but how to do so? One option would be to use sortition for all these remaining 75 percent of the seats. A second option would see that 25 percent of these seats be decided on  merits based while the other 50 percent remaining seats would be allocated through lottery.

In short, this system would imply that everyone that applies to be in the Council would stand a chance of being part of it. It will be certainly paramount that a quota system with a proportional representation of disadvantaged groups will also be guaranteed. Another key question is how long should its members remain in the council? A balance between not too short and not too long tenure must be struck. Members of the council should stay in power for one year or 18 months and they would not again be eligible to be part of the council in future.

A two-year cycle could also be envisioned but it is going to be essential to ensure that “space” for participation” opens up recurrently otherwise we would be at risk of institutionalizing a new elite of youths. What about the complex logistics of the meeting?

There could be at least three meetings in person and then have mandatory periodic online sessions where every citizen could assist and watch and possibly, have the opportunity of providing also some suggestions for the members. This aspect is important because it would enable other youths to feel connected and have a role. Participating in the Council should be a voluntary undertaking even if it is a time-consuming one.

At the most, a very basic monthly allowance (a sort of reimbursement) for its members could be entertained plus the transportation and lodging costs for those coming from outside the Kathmandu Valley for its in person sessions. The GenZ Council, if designed and implemented right away, can be a transformative democratic tool that could inspire better, more inclusive forms of decision-making.

A revised constitution could make it a constitutional body even without going to the extent of granting it with binding decision powers that the legislative and executive powers will have to respect. As the time is running short, the first iteration of the GenZ Council will be far from being perfect also because its design could be made through a more open process. Yet what at the end will count is that at least this new body that is being shaped could emanate hope that youths of this country can have a truly meaningful role in the way decisions are taken.

International visitor arrivals (IVAs) in 2025 reached 1,158,459 between January and December, slightly higher than in 2024 and marking a 97 percent recovery compared to the pre-pandemic period. December 2025 alone recorded 98,190 arrivals, up seven percent from December 2024 and also representing a 97 percent recovery compared to December 2019.

India remained the largest source market with 292,438 visitors (25.2 percent), followed by the United States with 112,316 (9.7 percent), China with 95,480 (8.2 percent), the United Kingdom with 58,684 (5.1 percent), and Bangladesh with 57,545 (5.0 percent). 

Region-wise, South Asia accounted for the highest share of arrivals at 35.2 percent, followed by other Asian countries (21.9 percent), Europe (19.1 percent), the Americas (11.7 percent), Oceania (4.6 percent), the Middle East (1.8 percent), Africa (0.4 percent), and other regions (5.5 percent). 

Meanwhile, tourism-related foreign currency earnings during the first four months of fiscal year 2082/83 (Shrawan to Kartik) stood at Rs 27.15bn, while foreign direct investment commitments in the tourism sector reached Rs 30.26bn across 476 projects during Shrawan to Mangsir of the same fiscal year.

The commission formed to investigate the incidents of Sept 8 and 9 is preparing to issue a letter summoning CPN-UML Chair KP Sharma Oli for a statement.

Speaking to journalists outside the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers on Thursday, commission chair Gauri Bahadur Karki said preparations are underway to call Oli for questioning in connection with the GenZ movement.

Asked what the commission would do if Oli does not appear when summoned, Karki responded that “tomorrow’s matters will be dealt with tomorrow.”

Karki also informed that the statement of former Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak has already been recorded. He added that the commission is confident it will submit its report within the recently extended deadline.

Amid growing debate and criticism over proportional representation (PR) closed lists, Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) Chairperson Rabi Lamichhane has said that names included outside established procedures would be removed.

“Some individuals who should not have been included have made it onto the list. If any name is found to be outside the prescribed process, it will be removed. I have already issued instructions,” Lamichhane said.

Following the statement, questions have been raised over whether political parties—including the RSP—can amend the PR closed lists submitted for the House of Representatives election scheduled for March 5. Specifically, questions have emerged on whether parties can revise submitted lists or withdraw and replace candidates.

According to the House of Representatives Proportional Representation Election Directive, 2082, amendments to submitted closed lists are allowed under specific conditions.

Legal provisions for amendment

Chapter 4 of the directive outlines provisions related to submission, correction, and amendment of PR closed lists. Clauses 13 to 32 specify procedures related to submission, candidate eligibility, verification, and revision of closed lists.

Clause 20 of the directive states that if, during scrutiny, a closed list is found to be inconsistent with the principles of proportional representation and inclusion, or fails to meet other prescribed requirements, the concerned political party will be instructed to correct the list.

Withdrawal and replacement of candidates

Clause 22 allows candidates included in the closed list to withdraw their candidacy within the timeframe specified in the election schedule. Upon receiving a withdrawal application, the election officer is required to remove the candidate’s name from the list and notify the concerned party.

Clause 23 further provides that after a candidate withdraws, the party may nominate another candidate within the stipulated time, subject to approval by its central committee, and submit the revised list to the Election Commission.

The law requires that any replacement candidate must belong to the same inclusive group as the candidate who withdrew. The replacement may be placed at the same ranking position or at the end of the closed list.

Scrutiny and objections

Once revised lists are submitted or if no revision is required, the election officer must publish the closed list on the Election Commission’s website and notice board. The law allows a seven-day period for filing objections if any candidate is found to lack qualifications under the Constitution or relevant laws. After reviewing complaints, the final closed list will be published.

Clause 19 of the directive details the scrutiny process, which includes verification of voter registration, compliance with inclusion and proportional representation requirements, group-wise representation percentages, gender representation (minimum 50 percent women in each inclusive group), representation from backward regions, inclusion of persons with disabilities, duplication of names, legal eligibility, and proper authorization by the party.

Election Commission Assistant Spokesperson Sita Pun Shrees stated that scrutiny of PR closed lists submitted by political parties has begun. She said parties failing to meet prescribed criteria would be instructed to correct their lists.