KATHMANDU: Kathmandu’s streets now seem quieter, yet the silence carries a precarious edge—like the stillness after a storm that nobody truly believes has passed.

Only weeks ago, tens of thousands of young Nepalis, most barely out of their teens, surged into the capital. They were angry, defiant, and fearless, demanding accountability that previous generations had long sought but never obtained.

What began as a protest against a government attempt to restrict social media rapidly escalated into a far-reaching revolt.

By the time 19 young protesters lost their lives in a single day, the movement had transformed into a generational upheaval—one that forced a Prime Minister to resign but left the nation teetering in a political void.

The irony is stark. The very youth who sparked the uprising have largely vanished from the political scene. Their slogans—end corruption, protect free expression—were never calls to dismantle the constitution or overthrow the state.

Yet the old system has already fractured, while the new framework is too fragile to function effectively. No legal mechanisms exist to form a replacement government, hold leaders accountable, or ensure timely elections. Should this interim authority collapse before the polls, Nepal could confront a constitutional abyss.

The nation now stands at a crossroads, with no smooth path forward.

Nepal’s entrenched political elite—Sher Bahadur Deuba, K.P. Sharma Oli, Pushpa Kamal Dahal—remain unwilling to step aside. They speak of elections, yet threaten legal maneuvers capable of indefinite delays. Their continued dominance may provide a semblance of stability but risks inflaming further resentment among young citizens who view them as relics of a dysfunctional order.

From the protests may emerge a new political force led by Generation Z itself. Figures such as Kathmandu’s outspoken mayor, Balendra Shah, symbolize potential leadership that prioritizes reform, transparency, and employment generation. Their platform could resonate far beyond Kathmandu.

Yet youth movements, despite their energy, are inherently fragile; organizing them into structured political entities is often far more challenging than mobilizing mass demonstrations.

The interim government, headed by former Chief Justice Sushila Karki, faces a rare window to tackle Nepal’s entrenched corruption.

Reforming bureaucracies, professionalizing police institutions, strengthening the judiciary—these are promises past revolutions have repeatedly made but never fulfilled. Success could reset the political landscape; failure could embolden authoritarian actors waiting in the wings.

Navigating opportunity amid turmoil

The Sushila Karki-led interim government, established in the aftermath of the Gen Z uprising, finds itself at a historic juncture.

Tasked with overseeing elections scheduled for March 5, 2026, it simultaneously faces an unparalleled opportunity to reshape governance.

Observers suggest that, with careful navigation of power dynamics, public expectation, and institutional responsibilities, the Karki government has the potential to stabilize post-rebellion Nepal.

The government’s legitimacy relies on delicate social consent. Following Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli’s abrupt resignation on September 9, a constitutional and administrative vacuum emerged.

President’s appointment of Karki, coupled with House dissolution and election scheduling, restored partial order. Yet the government operates under intense public scrutiny and ongoing judicial inquiries into the September 8–9 violence, which claimed 74 lives. The dual mandate—delivering elections and addressing grievances—presents an extraordinary challenge.

Karki’s cabinet has expanded gradually: starting with three ministers, now numbering eight, with prospects of two or three additional appointments.

Analysts emphasize that effectiveness hinges not on numbers but operational clarity and decisiveness. Daily governance choices carry amplified consequences, especially in ensuring elections meet legal timelines. The government must prioritize administrative continuity over ceremonial or symbolic initiatives that could detract from core responsibilities.

Public and media expectations extend well beyond formal mandates. Citizens and journalists alike demand action against corruption, transparency, and justice for victims of the uprising. Credibility will depend on practical governance, not symbolic gestures.

Historical precedent warns that entrenched bureaucracies and vested interests often thwart bold reform, making incremental but focused action critical.

Structured, well-defined institutional mechanisms are essential. Clear frameworks can guide the government without overcomplicating hierarchies. Transparency and timely communication are vital, particularly in an era dominated by digital misinformation. Accurate messaging will be key to maintaining public trust.

Ultimately, Karki’s government must harmonize three imperatives: maintain administrative continuity, ensure credible elections, and address the public’s demand for accountability.

The short-term mandate is not merely a countdown to an electoral transfer; it is an opportunity to demonstrate that a government born from civic protest can act with prudence and purpose. Success will depend on disciplined day-to-day governance supported by technical and civic expertise.

Social trust complements constitutional legitimacy. Timely elections alone are insufficient; the government must also lay foundations for a culture of transparency, accountability, and effective service delivery.

In a nation where historical grievances run deep, decisions made in the next six months will reverberate far beyond the immediate electoral cycle.

Nepal’s party-ocracy: Why Gen Z took to the streets

Political systems, while imperfect, provide insight into national trajectories and citizens’ rights. Nepal’s constitution, adopted a decade ago, guarantees democratic freedoms on paper.

In practice, however, Nepalis have experienced a “party-ocracy,” where institutions exist but political behavior undermines their effectiveness.

Decision-making often reflects the values of top leaders rather than institutional norms. While the constitution offers liberal guarantees, Nepal’s leaders frequently manipulate institutions for personal or party gain.

Elections occur, parliaments function, and ministers swear oaths of service—but for ordinary citizens, party networks dominate access to resources, employment, and basic services. Those outside patronage systems remain marginalized, with even routine government interactions often mediated by party affiliates or influenced by bribes.

Corruption is pervasive and widely acknowledged, yet political parties remain largely impervious. Party offices infiltrate ministries, while anti-corruption agencies serve to protect loyalists rather than prosecute misconduct.

Ordinary citizens grumbled but complied—until Generation Z mobilized. Free from older generations’ compromises, youth-led protests prioritized governance, accountability, and free expression.

When security forces responded violently, killing over 70 protesters, the movement became a societal turning point.

The demands were modest: better governance, reduced corruption, accountability. Yet the implications were unavoidable: without constitutional and systemic reforms, future elections risk reproducing the same political elite.

Proposed reforms under discussion include directly electing the prime minister, establishing an independent or symbolic constitutional guardian, and strengthening checks on party control of public institutions. Their success depends on the interim government’s commitment to reform.

Nepal has seen uprisings before, each promising transformation but delivering disappointment. Ignoring the Gen Z revolt risks repeating history, potentially in bloodier form.

Nepal’s political stalemate: Old guards cling to power

The nation’s political landscape remains dominated by three major parties: Nepali Congress, CPN-UML, and Maoist Centre. Yet the legitimacy of these parties is under unprecedented strain.

The Gen Z uprising exposed a gap between entrenched leadership and citizens’ expectations, leaving senior leaders—Oli, Deuba, Dahal—reluctant to cede authority, while lower-tier cadres face the tension of loyalty versus reform.

Fear pervades party functionaries, wary that elections without leadership change could lead to humiliating losses. Historical resilience contrasts with today’s perception: top leaders are widely seen as “anti-people.”

The coalition government, representing nearly two-thirds of the dissolved House, was forcibly removed by public revolt, eroding trust in previously respected parties.

Past post-uprising elections demonstrate the risk of inaction. The 2006 People’s Movement ousted the Rastriya Prajatantra Party, while the 2008 Constituent Assembly elections elevated the Maoists and Madhesi Forum. Similar patterns emerged in Sri Lanka’s 2022 revolt, demonstrating the vulnerability of entrenched elites.

Yet inertia persists. Oli refuses to step down from UML leadership despite losing the premiership and accountability for the state’s violent response.

Deuba makes no public commitment to leadership transition, and Dahal remains entrenched. Without generational renewal, old parties risk losing popular support and fragmenting internally.

Election timing, complicated by Himalayan terrain and logistics, may be manipulated to delay polls, further alienating voters. Meanwhile, youth-led movements are poised to capture disaffected electorates.

Nepal now faces a critical juncture: the survival of traditional parties depends on leadership renewal, credibility restoration, and responsiveness to accountability demands. Failure may translate into electoral punishment, reshaping political equilibrium.

The test for Karki’s government

The Gen Z protests, initially sparked by social media bans and corruption, escalated into a national reckoning.

The government’s violent response on September 8, 2025, resulted in 19 deaths, igniting unrest that claimed 74 lives and caused widespread destruction.

The Oli administration’s abrupt social media clampdown violated Supreme Court directives, ignoring legal requirements for regulation. Lifting the ban partially addressed grievances, but structural issues persist.

The Karki interim government inherits a triple mandate: curb corruption, investigate September killings, and conduct free elections by March 5, 2026.

The High-Level Judicial Inquiry Commission, established under the 1969 act, lacks prosecutorial authority, rendering it largely symbolic. Historical precedent underscores the risk of inaction.

Election timing presents additional challenges. Polls without addressing entrenched corruption risk reinstating the same actors. Wealthy politicians and party cadres wield influence over voters.

Selective accountability may perpetuate cycles of impunity. Comprehensive measures—including prosecutorial empowerment, asset scrutiny, and black-money regulation—are essential.

International pressure compounds urgency. Nepal’s grey-listing by FATF in February 2025 signals risk to financial credibility, investment, and economic stability.

Failure to act decisively risks dishonoring the martyrs of September 2025 and perpetuating systemic dysfunction.

The struggle for institutional integrity

Nepal’s recurring political violence reflects systemic manipulation of law enforcement. The Nepal Police, subordinated to partisan interests, have repeatedly failed to act impartially.

Arbitrary deployments, excessive force, and politically motivated targeting have become routine, exemplified by the September 2025 killings.

Earlier incidents, including the March 2025 Tinkune assembly, foreshadowed the systemic misuse of security forces. By contrast, the Gen Z protests exposed police vulnerabilities and miscalculations.

Public confidence in law enforcement has eroded, while the Nepal Army demonstrated rare adherence to objective control, providing a model for reform.

A newly constituted three-member commission, led by Judge Gauri Bahadur Karki and supported by professional police leadership, presents an opportunity to restore accountability.

Full cooperation from security agencies and political will are essential to implement recommendations. Lessons for the Nepal Police and Armed Police Force are clear: professional autonomy is critical to maintain credibility and public trust.

Nepal’s economic recovery: Challenges and opportunities

The Gen Z unrest inflicted severe economic damage. Government offices, private enterprises, and infrastructure were destroyed, with losses estimated at up to 5% of GDP.

Tourism and investments were disrupted, while remittance flows—the lifeblood of Nepal’s economy—faced strain.

The private sector, comprising 81% of GDP and 86% of employment, sustained losses of approximately Rs 80 billion.

Restoring investor confidence is imperative; political risk perception must be managed. Structural inefficiencies, entrenched corruption, and the politicization of business sectors exacerbate recovery challenges.

Human capital and digital infrastructure are central to long-term development.

With nearly half the population under 25, investment in education, e-governance, and technology-driven initiatives can expand domestic employment and reduce reliance on foreign labor. Engaging Nepal’s diaspora can mobilize capital, expertise, and innovation.

Nepal’s economic future hinges on stabilizing political risk, rebuilding infrastructure, and leveraging human and financial capital. The protests, while exposing vulnerabilities, also offer opportunities for reform and sustainable growth.

The fight for a new future

Nepal faces a critical inflection point. Decades of political patronage and corruption have eroded public trust, leaving younger generations frustrated with limited opportunities.

Mass mobilization against corruption demonstrates both systemic weaknesses and the emergence of politically conscious youth.

Interim authorities must maintain order, prepare for elections, and ensure service continuity while fostering investor confidence.

Transparency, efficient resource allocation, and targeted reforms—particularly in energy, finance, and digital governance—can channel youth energy constructively.

The streets may have expelled some of the old guard, but accountable institutions remain absent.

The challenge is consolidating reform while preventing lawlessness. Establishing mechanisms to curtail corruption, enforce the rule of law, and integrate all political actors is critical.

Nepal’s experiment with youth-led accountability is under test. The interim government must confront corruption and financial opacity directly.

The nation’s future depends on whether leaders and citizens can channel social fury into institution-building rather than perpetuating cycles of unrest.

The best outcome is a peaceful transition to accountable governance; the worst is renewed instability. For now, Kathmandu’s streets ask a lingering question: is this Nepal’s rebirth—or another prelude to a lost decade?