Nepal’s political landscape has been shaped repeatedly by acts of betrayal, and today’s GenZ movement finds itself encircled by similar breaches of trust—both from state institutions and non-state forces. This pattern is not new. Twenty years after the 2006 Second People’s Movement, that abolished the monarchy and established a federal republic, Nepal witnessed another youth-led uprising in Sept 2025, commonly referred to as the “GenZ” movement. The protesters’ core demands centered on ending systemic corruption, addressing mass unemployment, lifting restrictions on social media, holding the state accountable and dismantling entrenched old power structures. While some voices within the movement called for constitutional amendments or a directly-elected prime minister, the demand for immediate elections was not the primary focus.
Nevertheless, in response President Ramchandra Paudel dissolved the House of Representatives, appointed former Chief Justice Sushila Karki as interim prime minister and announced fresh elections within six months. Many observers see this rapid dissolution and election announcement as the latest instance of the state deflecting, rather than addressing, popular demands for systemic change.
Whether this abrupt move constitutes a deliberate strategy to defuse and ultimately neutralize the GenZ youth rebellion remains a critical question that warrants serious national debate.
Whither constitutional legitimacy?
After the government collapsed and Parliament was dissolved, the nation was left without leadership. Holding fresh elections and seeking a new public mandate appeared to be the most legitimate and constitutional way forward. It would have ensured that the interim government remained only a temporary arrangement, functioning strictly within constitutional limits. However, this path was never pursued.
The President should have first explored the possibility of forming a new government from within the existing Parliament, safeguarding constitutional integrity and institutional dignity. The more democratic alternative would have been to respond to the aspirations of the youth, bring their concerns to the floor of Parliament, and open meaningful avenues for their representation and participation in state governance. Nepal has taken such steps before—it is not a distant chapter of history.
Yet, the interpretation of the symbolic burning of ‘parliament’ during the movement as an attack on the institution itself has now become a contentious matter, one that may shape political debates and institutional behaviour far into the future.
Some argue that calling for fresh elections in the midst of a power vacuum is merely an effort to preserve the existing power structure. Others claim that this step does not resolve constitutional deadlocks but stands in direct violation of the constitution. Meanwhile, even as the demand for parliamentary restoration remains under judicial review, the very parties advocating for it are preparing to contest elections scheduled for March 5 next year. This, in effect, suggests that they have dismissed the spirit of the GenZ movement.
For some, elections were presented as a way to absorb the movement’s energy—redirecting youthful activism from the streets into parliamentary politics. Yet this logic contradicts the core of the youth uprising, which never demanded immediate elections. The protests exerted intense pressure on those in power, but following the election declaration, criticism has grown that the President’s decision—taken in the belief that street anger could be channeled into ballot papers—constitutes a profound betrayal of the movement’s purpose. In response, a segment of the youth now questions whether another uprising is needed to secure the goals for which they first took to the streets.
A bid to signal stability
By announcing the election date, the President appears to be projecting a message—both domestically and internationally—that Nepal is moving from instability toward procedural normalcy. Despite the scheduled elections creating an impression of institutional restoration, the conditions for a fair and credible vote are still far from secure. If the elections were to be cancelled under such circumstances, the country could face another crisis, reminiscent of events like prison breakouts and the burning of government buildings during previous unrest.
A limited mandate
The interim administration has been granted only one primary task: to conduct elections. This narrow mandate risks entrenching the same old power structures riddled with corruption. In such an environment, the possibility of the GenZ movement returning to the streets remains high. The interim government itself has repeatedly clarified that its role is not to engineer systemic change, but merely to steer the country back to the constitutional path through elections.
Yet, elections within six months are no cure-all. The challenges ahead are immense. The youth-led uprising has demanded deeper structural reforms—reforms that are currently not being addressed. The President’s decision to withhold authority from the interim government to amend the constitution or initiate institutional restructuring stands in stark contradiction to the spirit of transition. This raises a real risk that elections may simply reopen the door for the old parties to regain power.
There is also constitutional ambiguity regarding the appointment of a prime minister from outside Parliament following its dissolution. Fears persist that those powers granted in the present could be misused in the future.
Trust, reform and inclusion
Nepal is navigating a turbulent period. Institutions are weakened, and public trust in the state is steadily eroding. In such a context, six months is a short window. Rushed elections may favor established political forces rather than fairness or reform. If grievances over unemployment, corruption, exclusion and limited opportunity remain unaddressed, dissatisfaction could resurface even more strongly.
Simply announcing elections and releasing attractive party manifestos cannot restore people’s faith in the existing order. Trust must be rebuilt through visible action. The interim government must prioritise transparency and accountability from day one. Public disclosure of assets—from ministers and top officials to senior policymakers—is essential to reinforce integrity in state leadership.
Sensitive corruption cases must be pursued without delay, and the law must be allowed to act decisively. Only then will citizens feel the beginning of change. Equally crucial is the meaningful inclusion of youth, experts, women, indigenous communities and civil society in candidate selection and electoral rule-making—because inclusive participation is the foundation of genuine democracy.
Before the election day arrives, Nepal needs a broad national dialogue on long-overdue reforms and on the review of vague or disputed constitutional provisions. Such deliberation can set the groundwork for stability, improve governance and gradually rebuild public confidence in the system.
