Two months after the GenZ protest, Nepal’s politics remain largely unchanged, and political parties have refused to acknowledge the spirit of the movement of Sept 8. Streets in Kathmandu were filled with young demonstrators raising their voices against corruption and the social media ban. Following the repression and deaths of young protesters that day, public outrage erupted on Sept 9, forcing then Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli to resign and take protection with the Nepal Army. The protest still leaves many questions unanswered, including the potential role of infiltrators, constitutional breaches, and the legal accountability of the then Home Minister and the Prime Minister. Yet the core message was clear: the current structure and leadership of political parties are not trusted.
This message has been consistent among most Nepali voters, particularly the urban youth. In the last several years, political analysts, civil society members, scholars, and politicians have been engaging in conversations about deep-rooted frustration in Nepali society. A survey conducted by the Nepal Institute for Policy Research in Feb 2024, and a later published National Survey of Nepal by the International Republican Institute in June 2024, highlighted a significant level of youth dissatisfaction. More than 65 percent of respondents felt that political parties were moving in the wrong direction, while roughly three out of four expressed skepticism toward the motives of political leaders. This frustration had already manifested during local and federal elections, where urban voters demonstrated clear resentment toward mainstream parties.
Following the elections, public discussions centered on political reform, and it seemed as though parties were presented with a choice: reform or extinction. Most questions were focused on internal democracy, leadership change, and a genuine commitment to institutional reform to tackle longstanding corruption. The Sept 8-9 protest was not a sudden outburst but years of accumulated frustration. The issues raised like anti-corruption measures, the “nepokids” phenomenon, and opposition to the social media ban should be understood as longstanding grievances in Nepali society. These demands were not new as they echoed a persistent call for accountable leadership, meaningful party reform, and genuine inclusion of young voices in decision-making.
Yet, in the aftermath of the protest, political parties largely ignored this message. Nepali Congress has struggled to conclude its central committee meeting, with little sign of internalizing the spirit of the protest. CPN-UML openly disregarded the protests and refused accountability for the violent crackdown under the Oli-led government. CPN-Maoist and smaller communist parties have united as a single party but have failed to engage directly with demands for leadership change and youth inclusion. Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) faces challenges in balancing the blame associated with its chairperson, Rabi Lamichhane, while trying to acknowledge the GenZ movement as well.
Mainstream political parties have largely failed to grasp the depth of public discontent. Instead of addressing widespread frustration over corruption, the disconnect from citizen expectations, and accountability for September 8, many leaders have focused on superficial narratives by labeling the protests politically motivated, blaming social media, or dismissing them as a result of geopolitical interference. By prioritizing self-preservation and partisan interests over genuine accountability, political elites have reinforced the perception that mainstream politics is detached and unresponsive.
As of today, the interim government led by PM Sushila Karki is preparing for the general election on March 5. Most parties have accepted the outcome of the protest and plan to face voters, however, CPN-UML has actively confronted the government, campaigning for the restoration of parliament and calling for protests. Parties going to elections without any substantive change or refusing to participate both disregard the youth movement and the message it carried.
The refusal of political parties to internalize the GenZ protest carries profound implications for Nepal’s political landscape. First, it deepens the erosion of political trust, particularly among urban youth, who increasingly perceive mainstream parties as self-serving institutions rather than accountable actors. When voters feel ignored, skepticism about the value of elections and democratic participation intensifies, creating fertile ground for disillusionment. According to a global study by the OECD on youth political engagement, younger generations are less committed to democratic institutions and more likely to become politically alienated when governments fail to perform effectively, particularly in contexts marked by corruption or unresponsiveness.
Second, persistent neglect risks creating a generation of political hopelessness. Young citizens may disengage from formal politics entirely resulting in absence of youth voices in governance and leadership roles despite their demographic prominence. This disengagement undermines representative democracy, reduces pressure on politicians to implement reforms, and contributes to halted institutional reform, continued policy paralysis, and the persistence of corruption and inefficiency.
Third, ignoring longstanding grievances can exacerbate social polarization. When institutional channels for voicing concerns are ineffective or blocked, frustration may spill into identity-based politics, street mobilizations, and divisive social media campaigns. The absence of trust in mainstream political parties creates fertile ground not only for new parties or movements but also for authoritarian or anti-democratic forces. Political instability and societal discontent create openings for external geopolitical actors to intervene, influence narratives, or exploit divisions, potentially shaping domestic politics to serve strategic interests rather than national priorities. As observed in comparative studies of democratic backsliding, when citizens lose hope and distrust elected democratic leaders, political entrepreneurs seeking power through division, fear, and populism can gain traction, eroding institutional checks and weakening democratic norms from within. Democratic backsliding often begins under ostensibly popular democratic governments that fail to deliver legitimacy and accountability.
Finally, governance suffers when leaders prioritize self-preservation over reform. Policy paralysis, unchecked corruption, and inefficiency continue, exacerbating societal frustrations. Over time, these dynamics threaten institutional stability, impede long-term development, and weaken public faith in the democratic process.
The GenZ protest, therefore, was not merely a transient event but was a warning. The stakes are high: continued disregard risks producing a generation for whom mainstream politics is no longer a viable avenue for participation, amplifying social polarization, creating openings for anti-democratic forces, and inviting geopolitical actors to exploit domestic fissures, all of which could undermine the foundations of Nepalese democracy.
In conclusion, Nepal’s political parties face a critical choice. The message from the social sphere has been clear for years: change in leadership, demand for accountability, inclusion, and institutional reform is non-negotiable. Ignoring these demands not only alienates an entire generation but also creates fertile ground for division, radicalization, and anti-democratic forces to emerge. Political parties must confront the structural failures that generated this discontent and act decisively, or risk a future where trust in institutions is irreparably lost, social cohesion is weakened, and democracy itself becomes fragile. The GenZ protest is more than a moment of civic expression, it is a warning for the nation, and its lessons remain urgent and unheeded.
Sparsh Adhikari
Bachelor of Science in Foreign Service
IInd Year
Georgetown University, Qatar
