Submit your Article

When thousands of youths marched onto the streets on September 8, many in school dresses, they challenged the traditional power structure using digital platforms. Two things were particularly uncommon in this protest: First, the term “GenZ” and the second, the use of digital platforms. GenZ, often referred to as the first tribe of digital natives, are the demographic cohort after millennials. Analysts describe GenZ as compassionate and thoughtful, yet also anxious in a world of global crises and constant information flow. Second, their reliance on digital tools for communication and mobilization was a defining characteristic during the recent protest.

This decentralized and leaderless protest was a grassroot movement coordinated by GenZ through digital platforms. Platforms like Discord, YouTube and TikTok acted as a central point for information sharing, coordination and collaboration, building consensus and amplifying actions.

As Virginia Matthews once noted, GenZ channels their political power via online identities and digital activism. This holds true in global stage too, movements such as #MeToo and #BlackLivesMatter have shown how digital platforms can amplify voices and turn local frustrations into global advocacy.

Fueled by deep-seated frustration over corruption, inequality and systematic failure, the protest moved beyond the political ideology. It highlighted the ability of digital space to form a common voice, organize and pressure change—faster than conventional politics. It unified young people across cities and even inspired older generations and Nepalis living abroad to offer their support.

Why it matters

The significance of this protest goes beyond the moment of anger and frustration over corruption, inequality and growing influence of a generation in reshaping Nepal’s future.

The oldest members of GenZ are moving through universities, entering the workforce and even stepping into government, just like the previous generation but at a faster pace. They bring entrepreneurial spirit, a comfort with technology and impatience with outdated systems.

Many GenZ are already running digital startups from clothing brands on instagram to gaming companies and e-commerce platforms. For them, digitalization has provided unique opportunities to develop skills, remove social barriers and create sustainable growth. The restriction in the access to the digital world not only limits their potential but also their access to information and social support. The recent protests set a powerful reminder that comprehensive digital education is fundamental for civic participation, economic opportunity and accountable governance.

The protest also exposed how fragile Nepal’s governance system remains. When the public records and digital infrastructure were affected by the protest, it highlighted the vulnerability of paper-based systems. In contrast, data centers and backup availability protected countless documents. For a generation raised online, digitalization is not a luxury or convenience but a necessity, it is more about security, accountability and future stability of the nation.

What the protest revealed?

Education gaps

The protests clearly highlighted that Nepal's GenZ workforce is technologically-driven. This spotlighted the mismatch between GenZ potential and Nepal’s education system. While the jobs like software development, digital marketing and fintech are emerging, most schools place little emphasis on developing these skills. Schools’ curriculum rarely include practical IT training and entrepreneurial skills. If this continues, Nepal risks losing its first generation of digital natives to opportunities abroad. GenZ may be fluent in digital platforms but there is a gap in translating it into the production skills required for Nepal’s digital economy.

Continuing instability

The destruction of the private assets during the GenZ protests highlighted the uncertainty facing entrepreneurs and investors. This widespread fear is rooted in an unstable political-economic environment—most prime-ministers served less than two years in the last decade. This cycle of uncertainty poses a threat to aspiring entrepreneurs to innovate with confidence and ensure support for their products/services. As Nepal aims for graduation from the club of least developed countries in 2026, an unclear and uncertain roadmap threatens to drive both the talent and investment away. The urgency to build stronger and resilient systems to withstand social and political shocks is indeed necessary.

Misinformation and trust

The protest demonstrated how quickly the unverified rumors can spread in times of unrest even as the digital platform helped in forging coordination and sharing verified updates. This highlights the lack of strong foundation in digital literacy, fact-checking mechanisms and responsible online engagement. Without safeguarding, misinformation can distort public understanding and further weaken institutional trust.

Digital readiness

Although the GenZ protest showcased the power of technology to organize and mobilize, it also revealed the uneven digital readiness. The persistent digital divide among urban and rural areas, limited connectivity and uneven digital access among the youth limited the equal participation. Such divides led to an uneven voice among GenZ, these gaps are not only a matter of equality, but also of national progress. Without bridging these gaps, the transformative potential of GenZ to address long-standing issues such as inefficiency, corruption, and inaccessibility might remain limited.

Looking ahead

The GenZ protest revealed the beginning of a digital movement. If nurtured in time, GenZ could lead Nepal’s first true digital transformation. This includes e-government services to make public institutions more transparent, connecting local entrepreneurs with global buyers through digital marketplace and establishment of innovation hubs for young people to design solutions for pressing needs. However, all this depends on today’s choices. Without infrastructure, investment, digital literacy and supportive policies, the movement’s potential will be lost. What is needed is a strong commitment that turns the protest energy into a blueprint for a more open, efficient and inclusive Nepal.

The author is a graduate student in International Cooperation and Development and an EdTech researcher

According to the Constitution, Nepal is a federal parliamentary republic, where the Prime Minister with executive powers is elected through the parliament. However, due to frequent changes in government in recent years, this system has seen many problems, including political instability. Meanwhile, some individuals and groups are demanding a directly-elected Prime Minister. This article seeks to analyze positive and negative effects of this system as well as the challenges of the current parliamentary democracy.

Challenges of parliamentary democracy

One of the most persistent challenges in Nepal’s parliamentary model is the frequent change of governments, which often interrupts long-term development projects. For example, in the pursuit of power, political actors often form fragile coalitions that collapse quickly, while recurring corruption scandals further weaken public trust and spark protests on the streets.

Lack of political culture is another challenge. Leaders obsessed with their own interests do not put the people first. Problems such as corruption, protectionism and nepotism have weakened the effectiveness of democracy. And an increase in economic uncertainty invariably makes foreign elements more active in fragile polities like ours. 

In addition, there are social problems linked to human rights, such as gender-based violence, child marriage and bonded labor. The voices of minority groups such as women, Dalits, people with disabilities and sexual and gender minorities remain unheard. Even two decades after the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement that ended a decade-long war, transitional justice works remain incomplete. All of these factors are challenging Nepal’s democracy.

A directly-elected PM

The current constitution provides for the prime minister to be elected through the parliament. However, some new political forces such as the Rastriya Swatantra Party have proposed a directly-elected prime minister. The GenZ movement has also raised the demand for a term limit and a system of direct elections for the prime minister. This change would require a constitutional amendment needing a two-thirds majority in the parliament. The current interim prime minister, Sushila Karki, has stated that she does not have the mandate to effect this change in the constitution.

Positive effects

The system of a directly-elected prime minister can bring political stability as chances of the government serving a full term are higher. It provides continuity to national development works and supports economic and social progress. Since the elected leader depends on a broader support of the people, this system protects the country from extreme left or right-wing ideologies by encouraging centrist policies. A directly-elected Prime Minister is free from parliamentary wranglings, so s/he can become a strong executive by taking decisions quickly and effectively.

The contemporary history of South Asia and Europe offer successful examples of this type of system. In Sri Lanka, for example, the president is directly elected and holds executive powers. Following the end of the civil war in 2009, the South Asian country, under the strong leadership of Mahinda Rajapaksa, made temporary gains in sectors such as tourism and infrastructure. 

France’s semi-presidential system illustrates how a directly-elected president can drive reforms, as seen under Emmanuel Macron’s leadership with labor and EU policy changes. Macron maintained political stability and responded effectively to the covid pandemic. These examples show that direct elections provide leadership with popular support and make it easier to implement long-term policies. There are also successful examples of prime ministers elected through the parliament. Under Narendra Modi, India achieved economic growth from 2014 to 2024, including GST reforms and Digital India, making the country the fifth largest global economy. In Europe, the UK’s parliamentary system has long provided stability. The Tony Blair government, for example, brought economic prosperity by improving education and health. These successes clearly show that parliamentary systems can take balanced decisions by incorporating diverse views.

Negative effects

This system is not a panacea. Conflicts between the president and the prime minister can increase under this system, thereby deepening instability. Currently, there is a problem regarding the executive authority of caretaker Prime Minister Sushila Karki, who came to power (not through the usual parliamentary process) following a youths-led movement that toppled an elected government, and President Ramchandra Paudel, who remains as the head of the state and the enforcer as well as the protector of the constitution. Limiting the powers of PM Karki, President Paudel has tasked the current government with a singular mandate: conducting elections in six months. 

In this context, it may be worthwhile to revisit the interim government under Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, which took shape after the people's movement of 1990. With full support from King Birendra, the government successfully conducted parliamentary elections and also introduced a constitution within a year. 

Whereas PM Karki has not received such support from President Paudel, meaning holding elections within the deadline will be easier said than done. This situation gives an ample indication of problems that directly-elected PMs may have to face if Nepal opts for such a system. 

Until the dawn of Sept 9, Nepal was set to graduate from Least Developed Country status on 24 Nov 2026, after meeting two of three UN criteria. By the dusk of the same day, the infrastructure and wealth of the nation had been brought to ashes by destructive riots, in the guise of GenZ demonstrations. Now is the time to focus on recovering from the damages, addressing challenges, building economic resilience and reforming policies to enable the country to move forward on its own feet, without relying on foreign aid.

For the time being, India and China seem to synchronize their tunings—we are happy. Chances are high for a ceasefire in the Russia-Ukraine war—we are happy. We are likely to see improved regional connectivity and cooperation across the Himalayas and around the Bay of Bengal—we are happy. Sure, these topics sound high. For Nepal, a country sandwiched between two giant neighbours, more important is whether these developments make our pie larger.

As recently as within a century, Nepal and her sons have tremendously supported both India and China. We participated in the Quit India Movement (QIM). Nepali-origin leaders like Dambar Singh Gurung, Bhim Bahadur Gurung and Dhanbir Singh Gurung supported India’s freedom struggles. Lakhan Thapa Magar inspired resistance. Thousands of Gorkhas joined Subhas Chandra Bose’s Indian National Army, contributing bravely to India’s fight against the British colonial rule. At least three major Nepali leaders—BP Koirala, Ganesh Man Singh and Manmohan Adhikari—actively participated in India’s independence movement during the 1940s. They joined protests, supported the QIM and faced arrests.

Nepal sided with the current Beijing-based Chinese government, at a time when the Taipei-based Kuomintang was representing China in the UN. We have unequivocally recognized Tibet and Taiwan as inalienable parts of China. We suppressed the Khampa rebels, who were trying to use Nepali land to stir Tibet. We have supported almost all non-strategic Chinese initiatives. We have asked nothing other than economic cooperation and technical collaboration, from India or China in return.

For almost a century, Nepal has also supported a US-dominated world order. We have actively participated in the UN, stood by resolutions of the UN Security Council and beginning from 1958 provided the largest number of peace-keeping forces, sacrificing 76 volunteers.

Our cooperations with all countries and regions are guided by peaceful and ecofriendly developmental goals. We cooperate with all, against poverty and natural disasters. Nepal is already burdened with natural calamities like earthquakes, floods, landslides, wildfires, vector-borne diseases and lightning. We don’t want to invent or invite man-made problems. We don’t want to produce enemies. We only seek friends. Our friendship with one is not targeted against another.

Our asymmetries in economic size, diversity and quality with both neighbors, inadequacy of trade complementarity and lack of meaningful comparative product or service advantage pose a big challenge to our international trade. We have yet to identify our trade strengths and need to develop technologies that make our resources more valuable. While political non-alignment is the bottomline for survival, the depth of our friendship is gauged by economic interests and technical cooperations.

We want to live in peace, we don’t want to become Kashmir, Gaza or Ukraine. We are a liberal country; domestically we respect the choice of our people. As to the internal issues of other countries, they are none of our business. When it comes to international relations, we only seek friendship and cooperation, and we don’t seek conflicts. We have never been offensive. We have only supplied peacekeeping forces under the UN banner.

The above description is not an exaggeration. We lived by principles. We supported our neighbors unconditionally, even when the then world powers were humiliating them. What comes, we will continue to stick to our policy of prioritizing neighbors. To safeguard our hard-earned sovereignty, we will stick to a non-alignment policy.

We have border issues with India, which has occupied Nepali territories including Kalapani, Lipulek and Limpiyadhura. We have repeatedly informed this to our northern neighbour and asked them not to deal with India on our occupied territory, especially following the 2015 India-China plan to promote their bilateral trade through Lipulek. The infringement on our sovereignty has ignited widespread patriotic sentiments and a renewed demand for diplomatic action and territorial integrity. The deal can become a turning point in our world view, awakening national consciousness and unity, discarding divisive foreign lenses. 

As a country, we are confined within current geographical borders. As a nation with a broader diaspora of 5-6m, Nepalis already have become a global society, and Nepal needs to look after the interests of all Nepalis one way or the other. The economy alone can no longer link them all. We need to link through subtler bonds: language, culture, arts, history, religion, genetic heredity, to name a few. Such bonds help strengthen nationality in the long run, as seen in the formation of Israel out of the Jews spread across the continents.

A healthy and constant engagement with diaspora can be the safest and fastest way to acquire high-techs. Look, India’s nuclear program benefited from returnees like Homi Bhabha, who was trained at Cambridge and helped build India’s nuclear infrastructure with support from Indian scientists abroad. Pakistan’s program was significantly advanced by Abdul Qadeer Khan, a metallurgist working in the Netherlands, who transferred centrifuge designs and helped develop uranium enrichment facilities. Israel relied on support from the international Jewish diaspora, with scientists like Ernst Bergmann and political figures like Shimon Peres securing French cooperation to build the Dimona reactor. In China, US-trained scientists such as Qian Xuesen returned during the Cold War and played a central role in missile and nuclear weapons development. Nepal doesn’t lack highly skilled patriotic sons and daughters, now working in different world-class technology facilities.

Hitting the streets, shouting slogans and blaming each other or past leaders may bring self-indulgence, but such acts are unlikely to lead the nation to glory. Let us unite, develop Nepali perspectives and move forward. Once we stand on our feet, we are one step nearer to success.

Firstly, I extend my heartfelt congratulations to the newly appointed Prime Minister, Sushila Karki. Sushila Kari’s  appointment is not only historic but also deeply personal to me. Having worked alongside her in the legal fraternity, I have witnessed her journey up close—first as a lawyer, then as a judge, justice and eventually as the chief justice of Nepal. Our paths have often crossed in the Bar and Bench, where we shared the common pursuit of justice and fairness.

Beyond the professional sphere, there is also a sense of cultural and social affinity. Our birthplaces lie close to each other, and we were shaped by similar traditions and values. That shared background makes this moment even more meaningful to me. It gives me great satisfaction to see someone I once knew as a fellow lawyer, and later admired as the country’s first woman chief justice, now take on the mantle of interim prime minister.

However, with this happiness also comes responsibility. At this critical juncture, I feel it is important to share a few suggestions with her—drawn not only from my professional experience but also from my hopes for the nation.

Her appointment has come at a particularly critical moment in our national history. As someone who has spent her entire career interpreting, upholding, and shaping the law, Karki herself is the foremost authority on whether her elevation to the post of interim prime minister aligns with constitutional principles. She is not just a student of the law; she has been its interpreter, guardian, and defender. In that sense, there is little need for anyone else to lecture her on constitutional validity—she knows it better than most of us.

What is equally important is the response her appointment has received beyond our borders. Within hours of the announcement, messages of congratulations poured in from the United Nations, from our neighbor India—the world’s largest democracy—and from other nations. Such swift recognition is not just diplomatic formality; it is, in fact, an international endorsement of her leadership at a delicate time. This in itself is a powerful signal: the world is watching Nepal closely, and it stands ready to support her stewardship of the country in this transitional phase.

Yet, in my view, much of this international endorsement was less about constitutional propriety and more about symbolism. The world welcomed the fact that Nepal, for the first time in its history, has a woman prime minister. Beyond that symbolic achievement, however, the path to her appointment was far from the ideal parliamentary process. It was not the outcome of a broad democratic consensus but rather the product of pressure from a handful of immature and violent youths who, in the name of revolution, took to vandalizing public and private property, and even attacking politicians and their homes.

What disturbed me even more was the conspicuous silence of the security forces. The Nepal Police, Armed Police Force and even the Nepali Army—institutions entrusted with upholding law and order—stood by as these mobs unleashed violence. Their inaction gave the impression that even our security apparatuses had grown weary of the political class and, perhaps out of frustration, chose not to intervene much. This tacit disengagement raised troubling questions about the health of both our democracy and our institutions at a moment when the country desperately needed stability and restraint.

I may be wrong in my assessment, but those of us who understand the rule of law—the intellects, the thinkers and the practitioners—must not hesitate to speak the truth. Silence in the face of irregularities only allows society, leadership and government to stray from the right path.

With that in mind, my foremost suggestion to the interim prime minister is to actively engage in dialogue with the existing political parties, at least those represented in parliament. She must seek their acknowledgment of her leadership and, wherever possible, include members with clean reputations from these parties in her cabinet. Such inclusion is not a concession; it is a strategic necessity. Acceptance from these parties will be crucial for her governance, for building stability and for preparing the ground for upcoming parliamentary elections. Creating an environment of confidence among all stakeholders should be her priority, and the composition of her cabinet should reflect that goal—bringing in those who can genuinely facilitate dialogue, cooperation and a forward-looking political atmosphere.

It is equally important that the interim prime minister exercise discretion in selecting her ministers. She must avoid appointing populists or those who have become “heroes” overnight through social media. Expressing opinions online for popularity is one thing; offering sound advice and contributing to effective governance is quite another. For meaningful progress, the cabinet should consist of well-educated and experienced individuals capable of guiding the leadership with wisdom and foresight. By doing so, she can set a powerful precedent—stabilizing the country and restoring the standards of good governance.

Her focus must extend beyond political symbolism. She should prioritize solutions that strengthen peace and security, promote transparent and effective governance, combat corruption, and ensure free, fair and timely elections. These steps are essential not only for preserving the constitution but also for safeguarding the democratic framework and the future of our nation.

The author is a member of the Supreme Court Bar and has been practicing corporate law for around three decades