One of the best ways to ensure that the new generations – not only the current members of the so-called Gen Z but also their young peers – have agency and ownership in the future of the nation is to entrust them with a real space where their voices can be heard.

This is what the Gen Z Council is – one of the most important features of the 10-point agreement signed between the interim federal government and a group of representatives of the Gen Z.

In a previous piece for the Annapurna Express, I had offered a personal viewpoint to explain why the proposed Gen Z Council that is still to be designed and put in place, should embrace a deliberative democracy approach at the core of its mission. In short, I do believe that enabling young people to have an official platform to express their voice would represent a first step to expand the process of decision-making.

Revisiting the way decisions are taken in the realm of policymaking and more in general in the field of politics, means re-thinking the way democracy works in the country.

In a way, Nepal could offer a new way forward to enhance deliberative democracy, a phenomenon that is already happening around the world where citizens are invited to provide their insights and offer recommendations on some of the most salient policy issues affecting them.

In a paper published in June 2025, Claudia Chwalisz, the founder of DemocracyNext, one of the most prominent action-tank outfits promoting deliberative democracy, and Sammy McKinney, an academic with the University of Cambridge and a member of DemocracyNext, offer an approach on how deliberative practices and processes can be expanded or according to their terms, “scaled” also by leveraging the use of new technologies like AI.

Their focus is harnessing technology to promote deliberative practices.

“The intersection of technology and democracy represents one of the most consequential challenges of the 21st century. As technologies like AI develop rapidly, we face critical choices about how they will shape – or undermine – our democratic futures. In this paper, we have offered a foundational framework for investigating the scaling of deliberative processes across five dimensions, moving beyond simplistic notions that equate scale merely with participant numbers,” they explained.

Yet I do believe that for the sake of the current discussion in Nepal that has zero experience in modern deliberative practice despite having centuries old traditions of deliberative practices embedded in the local fabric of society, we should focus on the authors’ understanding of “scaling” deliberation.

They came up with five dimensions of scaling and this is relevant because deliberative practices – if they want to enhance the quality of democracy in Nepal and around the world – must be enhanced and expanded organically, almost in a natural manner. According to them, the process of scaling democracy consists of “scaling out (increasing deliberator numbers), scaling up (higher governance levels), scaling across (increasing number of processes), scaling deep (increasing impact), and scaling in (improving deliberative quality)”.

Basically, the overarching goal would be to strengthen the current elective model of democracy that is the dominant model around the world, ensuring a critical mass of deliberative practices in which citizens are accustomed and comfortable with expressing their opinions.

Having deliberative practices should progressively become the standard practice of democracy, especially locally.

As per the current prevailing model of democracy based on elections, elected officials are entrusted with the responsibility of taking care of the public affairs of a community, either a whole nation or a regional or local body. We do know that this model is not working the way it should and this is the reason why it must be complemented with a new way of practicing democracy.

That’s why while imagining the upcoming Gen Z Council as an harbinger of a more direct form of democracy, it is of absolute importance that its establishment represents a first milestone towards a new way of practicing democracy in the country.

Gen Z councils or assemblies across the nation

Gen Z councils or assemblies should also be formed at the local level, creating, step by step, an ecosystem of more direct youth participation in the national and local decision-making across the nation.

Otherwise, having only a Gen Z Council at the federal level might not be strong enough to address the needs of representation of all youths, especially those from more remote and less urban areas.

It would also be a question of fairness that everywhere in the country there are forums for young people to be part of the decision-making process.

Gen Z as a third chamber

The Gen Z Council that I do imagine would ideally work as a “third” chamber. It would be a space where its members will have the opportunity to propose new ideas that, following a very structured and precise process, could end up being taken into consideration by the two chambers (House of Representatives and National Assembly) that Nepal’s Constitution has envisioned.

I also see the possibility for the Gen Z Council to propose feedbacks on any bills being discussed and formulated in the two houses of the legislature. One of the features of this Gen Z Council is the fact that its members should not be chosen through elections. The reason is simple: there would be a high risk that elections would once again offer the same shortcomings that elections normally provide to the citizens.

Instead of offering a level playing field, elections exactly do the opposite as they project power dynamics above any other considerations, especially overshadowing both competence and inclusiveness.

In my previous piece, I had proposed a mixed system in which the federal government would appoint some members while the remaining seats would be assigned through a fair and open process that takes into account the principle of inclusion and fair representations of groups of youths who are less represented in the power chambers.

Now I do understand that doing away with elections might cause some skepticism but my answer to these concerns is that around the world there are plenty of experiences in deliberative democracy that are effective and do the work. Nepal should find its own system, adapting and taking the best of all models and experiences being implemented.

I could also imagine a peer-to-peer process in which those youths who express their interest in becoming members of the Gen Z Council, could review themselves all the applications and using a preference system, they would enlist their own desired peers. Basically, this method would offer a simplified version of the Preferential Voting System that exists in Australia.

At the end of the day, with this system, we would end up with a vote and it would be problematic to ensure that preferences are given in an impartial and unbiased way. For example, a candidate from a community could be keener to support other peers from his/her own group. At the end, I do not think that any form of voting would be appropriate to determine the members of the Gen Z Council.

A possible roadmap

Therefore, I would suggest the following roadmap to activate the first Gen Z Council.

Step 1: Preparatory commission

The interim federal government sets up a Commission in charge of coming up with the regulations and working procedures of the Gen Z Council. Among the first elements to be decided is the overall number of members of the Council.

Step 2: Publication of the regulations

After some public sessions to get formal ideas, the Preparatory Commission should publish the modality to apply for membership to the Gen Z Council. One essential fact is that no party membership should be allowed to anyone willing to join it.

Step 3: Appointment of nominated members of the Gen Z Council

The interim federal government should initiate the process of nominating some of its members, leaders of the current Gen Z movement. Inevitably this element, the choice and selection of some leaders and the exclusion of others, would end up creating some friction and tension.

My belief is that in the future, the Gen Z Council could always have a number of appointees among its members but their number should be drastically lower than those that are chosen through the mainstreamed process that, unequivocally, should represent the main entry door to the Gen Z Council.

Singapore, despite being hardly a beacon of democracy and political rights, has this model being implemented for decades and see, in its current form, the appointment of nine distinguished citizens, formally called Nominated Member of Parliament (NMPs) with proven achievements and accomplishments in their professional and personal lives.

These NMPs are not affiliated with any party and this is important.

In Singapore where there is not a real level playing field in the national politics with the People Power Party dominating the political arena and a tiny opposition, these NMPs can offer a nuanced view, providing a distinguished narrative and ideas from the main ruling party. This is a very important aspect that should also be taken into consideration in the appointment of a selected number of youth leaders to the Gen Z Council in Nepal.

Step 4: Selection of the remaining members

This is one of the most complex tasks because fairness and inclusiveness together with competence must be the guiding principles for membership to the Gen Z Council.

Different approaches can be used but around the world, sortition (lottery) is the main tool used to ensure that no member of the elites capture deliberative forums.

A full sortition process would be impractical. Therefore, an open application process should be considered and implemented, prioritizing applicants with a certain level of accomplishments.

At the same time, sortition could be used for considering those candidates who have less experience and less achievements but are still showing potential.

Conclusion

There are certainly easier ways of creating a Gen Z Council but none of them would be transformative nor able to meet the aspirations of the September Uprising.

The nation does not need another body that accomplishes nothing and just is a waste of public resources. There is no more time for tokenistic measures.

Introducing elements of deliberative democracy in the Gen Z Council would not be a panacea but rather a first important milestone in a bold process of rethinking the way democratic institutions work.

The timing is very short and it would be essential to have a Gen Z Council in place before the March election.

Yet we cannot rush too much and miss one of the greatest opportunities the nation has to prove that youths can have a role and be trusted to be in charge.