A month after GenZ protesters toppled the KP Sharma Oli-led government and an interim administration headed by former Chief Justice Sushila Karki was formed, uncertainty still looms over whether the new government will be able to hold fresh elections on March 5 next year. Conducting free and fair elections remains one of the main demands of the GenZ movement, and the only viable path to safeguard Nepal’s constitution.
Beyond the election, the Karki government faces multiple challenges: managing factionalism among GenZ groups, rebuilding key government institutions damaged during the protests, and restoring law and order.
Except for the CPN (Maoist Center), major political parties remain undecided about joining the electoral process. A lingering climate of fear continues to grip the private sector as well, likely accelerating capital flight and worsening Nepal’s already fragile economy. The media, which should be playing a pivotal role at this critical juncture, has largely resorted to self-censorship due to fear and uncertainty. It also remains unclear whether major powers, who have long been influential in Nepal’s internal affairs, truly support the call for free and fair elections and the protection of the constitution.
The Sept 8–9 protests erupted against endemic corruption and the deep politicization of state institutions. Despite sporadic violence and criminal acts, the demonstrations reflected the people’s anger and frustration that had been simmering for years. Global experience shows that managing a nation after such a major upheaval is a herculean task. Many countries, after similar uprisings, have descended into prolonged civil wars or become arenas for international rivalries. Bangladesh, for example, remains uncertain about its elections more than a year after its own popular uprising. In Nepal, too, doubts persist over whether elections can be held on time amid so many unresolved issues.
The law and order situation remains fragile. Despite limited resources, the Nepal Police is trying to restore its offices, but officers continue to live in fear of renewed attacks. Their apprehension is not unfounded. Many believe protesters could again target them, as during the September unrest. The government’s handling of security has also been questionable. Last week, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued a directive instructing police not to arrest individuals directly involved in vandalism, arson, and attacks on public and private property.
Following the directive, police were compelled to release those arrested during the protests. Later, the probe committee led by Gauri Bahadur Karki clarified that government agencies are free to investigate criminal cases independently. Yet, with law enforcement still weak, many political leaders remain underground, and normal political activity has not resumed. The private sector, too, is hesitant to voice its concerns. “Who will protect us if some unidentified group attacks?” asked one businessman, expressing widespread anxiety within the business community. To restore confidence, the government must go the extra mile to ensure law and order and engage with both GenZ protesters and political leaders making provocative statements.
There should be no ambiguity in addressing the Sept 8-9 incidents. The government must investigate and take action against those who ordered police to open fire on unarmed students in broad daylight. While the inquiry commission can look into the matter, the police must act where clear evidence exists. Likewise, not all violent acts during the protests can be justified as spontaneous expressions of public anger. In several places, organized groups carried out arson and targeted attacks, many of which were captured on video. Some acts were clearly politically motivated. Therefore, all sides, including the government, political parties, and GenZ groups, must avoid a biased approach and commit to impartial justice.
There are now dozens of GenZ factions, each voicing distinct demands on social media and in the streets, often shaped by political leanings. One faction, for instance, advocates amending the constitution to introduce a directly elected presidential system in place of the current parliamentary one. While all political views should be heard and respected, constitutional amendment is neither feasible nor within the interim government’s mandate. Prime Minister Karki has made this clear in her address to the nation. The constitution was already stretched during the formation of this government, and President Ramchandra Paudel lacks the authority to amend it unilaterally.
Most of the issues raised by GenZ groups are not new; they echo debates from the constitution-drafting period. Today, various forces are again trying to push their agendas, such as restoring the monarchy, reviving the Hindu state, and dismantling federalism. All sides should recall 2015, when despite immense disagreements, a compromise was reached to finalize the constitution. They should recognize that failure could plunge the nation into instability. Reopening that Pandora’s box now would only invite further conflict. The current situation offers all forces a fair chance to compete in elections and present their agendas to the people.
Equally concerning is the lack of dialogue between the government and political parties, a crucial step toward creating an environment conducive to elections. The Election Commission has yet to invite parties for consultations. If its current office-bearers fear engaging in dialogue, they should step down to make way for new leadership. Unilateral decisions by the commission, without stakeholder consultation, risk undermining credibility.
A central demand of the GenZ movement is firm action against corruption. Yet, the government has done little on this front. The Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA), a constitutionally mandated anti-graft body, is under pressure as protesters demand the resignation of its leadership. The government may face legal hurdles in forming a parallel body, but it must find a way to address corruption, either through an understanding with the CIAA to investigate major scandals or by proposing new accountability mechanisms.
Since the GenZ protests, the public has also been watching how global powers perceive Nepal’s unfolding situation. These powers should firmly support the timely holding of elections within six months to protect the constitution. Any derailment of the electoral process might serve short-term interests, but long-term instability or conflict in Nepal benefits no one. While external actors should refrain from interfering in domestic politics, their goodwill and support should reinforce Nepal’s democratic path.
The major political parties, too, bear heavy responsibility. While the new political environment may be a setback for some leaders, it should not be for the parties themselves. They must support the electoral process and engage constructively with the interim government. If they do so, a conducive political environment will gradually emerge, and if necessary, they can also seek judicial remedies through the Supreme Court.
At this critical juncture, the role of independent media is indispensable. Unfortunately, due to insecurity and impunity, many journalists are resorting to self-censorship. The interim government has yet to make any commitment to safeguard media freedom, and the international community, once vocal on press freedom violations, has remained largely silent despite systematic attacks on journalists and media houses.
Ultimately, the government, political parties, judiciary, civil society, and all democratic actors must work together to stabilize the country. While some groups may seek immediate fulfillment of their demands, everyone must recognize the fragility of the state. Nepal cannot afford further instability or chaos, politically or economically. Those in positions of power must act responsibly, inclusively, and without provocation.
Kamal Dev Bhattarai
Editor
