KATHMANDU: Former Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai was the only ex-prime minister to have attended Interim Prime Minister Sushila Karki’s swearing-in ceremony. He has supported not only the Gen Z movement but also the Karki-led government that emerged because of it.

On September 23, he announced his resignation from the leadership of the Nepal Samajwadi Party (Naya Shakti), which he had led.

In this context, the following is a curated excerpt from an interview with former Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai, conducted by Nepal News Editor-in-Chief Prashant Aryal and Editor Baburam Bishwakarma.

You recently resigned from the leadership of the Nepal Samajwadi Party (Naya Shakti). It was expected that this would put pressure on the top leaders of major parties to step down as well, but that does not seem to have happened?

Societies advance through many ladders. Political, economic, social, and cultural aspects all influence this process. Human psychology and consciousness are products of these interconnections.

Changing social relations, family relationships, and psychological structures repeatedly and developing them into culture and ethics is the developmental process of human history. This, in turn, completes the process of political democratization. Ultimately, it transforms society economically through knowledge, science, and technology.

Historically, we were late in bringing about political change. On one hand, for a long time, we accepted fatalism, theism, and monarchical absolutism.

On the other hand, our multi-ethnic and geographical structure caused our culture to take on a form of “tribalism.” For this reason, even after major political changes, the parties and leaders who came had similar economic, social, cultural, and mental structures.

After change, politics was valued not as a responsibility but in terms of personal ego and prestige. Clinging continuously to that responsibility is a remnant of feudal thinking.

In the monarchy, leadership was created hereditarily through aristocratic thinking; even after coming into democratic processes, the old tendencies could not be transformed. The current leadership’s greed for position is a manifestation of that same trend.

Amid such tendencies, how can new leadership emerge in our political system?

I am someone who studies scientifically how society progresses and seeks to understand the consciousness of history. I also view society and politics from an economic perspective. The second Constituent Assembly drafted a new constitution. After that, federal Nepal entered a new era.

Any revolution must take the support of the people, be based on rights and freedom, and use the country’s resources to chart a new path for development and prosperity. This cannot happen through parties or systems carrying old thinking. As early as 2013, I had said that a new power based on the new generation and new ideas was necessary. Today, that view has become even more meaningful.

The major parties and leadership of the country have not yet developed the consciousness of a new era. So far, politics has only involved protests and changing systems. The game from one government to another has frustrated the people. It has not brought economic or social transformation.

Unemployment has angered the youth. This gave rise to the Gen Z explosion. The problems inherent in Nepali society have now emerged explosively. It is ironic that leaders with old thinking still do not perceive this.

The solution now is for forces, individuals, and groups who can understand new change factually and act accordingly to come forward.

Do you mean that if traditional political parties remain at their current pace and mindset, they may cease to exist, or are you saying that new powers will come into their role?

Yes. Like a stagnant well where weeds and shrubs grow, Nepali society has become like a motionless well. Now, the dam of the Gen Z uprising must sweep away the old powers. That is the very reason for the movement.

If old parties and leaders continue to survive through tricks and manipulations, the same old miseries can repeat. But history does not follow that rule.

Traditional powers and individuals must be replaced. Alternative forces with new ideas and energetic leadership must come forward. Promoting that is my main effort now.

Are you trying to become the new leader of Gen Z yourself?

I have never said that I must personally be in leadership. Our generation worked up to a certain stage—from 1950 through 1990, then 1996, 2006, up to 2015.

We opened the door for political change. During this period, a major era shift occurred—from the digital revolution to AI development. Communications, geography, and human consciousness have taken extraordinary leaps.

The intense economic and social changes in our neighboring regions paved the way for the rise of new powers. I believe Nepal too must now chart a new path suited to the era.

Our generation completed its work by 2015. That is our cut-off date. The time after 2015 is a new era. New leadership had to emerge for that. In a relay race, after one has run their part, leadership is handed over to the next.

This handover is gradual, not sudden. Over the past 10 years, I have been participating in this political relay to gradually hand over leadership to the new generation.

There are less than six months left before the announced elections. How will the old powers restructure and new powers emerge in this remaining period?

Six months is a target span. But the nature of the current government must be understood a little. This government has come directly on the strength of the Gen Z movement. Some have compared it with Khilraj Regmi’s government, but the current government is different.

Regmi’s government had a mandate only for elections. The current government came because the state revolted against the corruption of leaders in power. Those in power have accumulated vast wealth and exploited the state; they must be punished, and corruption must be investigated.

This government was formed to ensure good governance and stability. There were demands on the streets for a directly elected executive presidential system.

On that basis, this government was formed. Therefore, this government must address the Gen Z movement’s agenda before going to elections. It is, in that sense, entirely different from Regmi’s government.

Can this government amend the constitution to fulfill the demands of the Gen Z movement, as you suggested?

Absolutely. Constitutional amendment must happen now. The youth demand good governance and prosperity. The mixed parliamentary system we adopted did not provide political stability. The two elections held after the new constitution have confirmed this.

So, we must move to a directly elected executive presidential system. Likewise, there should be proportional but directly elected parliaments at the federal and provincial levels.

This demand has arisen from the streets. For political stability, this must now be the main path. If elections are held in the old way, the same instability will return. That instability will again reproduce misgovernance.

I have heard that the Prime Minister said these issues do not fall within the government’s purview. She needs to reconsider these matters.

If we amend the constitution to hold elections for a directly elected executive president, won’t the constitution deviate the path?

The current constitution defines only two things as immutable: one, the country’s national sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity; and two, the sovereignty vested in the people. Apart from these two, everything else can be changed—that is the essence of the constitution.

Misgovernance happened because of political instability, and misgovernance prevented economic development. Therefore, to fulfill the youth’s demands, the root of the problem must be addressed.

If a directly elected president turns out to be worse, won’t that pose more risks than the current system?

Direct elections bring better people. In the current electoral system, a candidate can win a constituency with only 10,000 to 30–40,000 votes. Meanwhile, Nepal has over 15 million voters. If there is direct election, over 10 million people would have the opportunity to vote.

Naturally, based on the principle of probability, a candidate chosen by over 10 million voters is more likely to be better than someone chosen by 50–60 thousand. This is because you cannot “buy” the votes of ten million people to win an election.

An elected executive provides good leadership and stability. But, at the same time, the House of Representatives also exists. The House of Representatives must be made directly elected and fully proportional.

Women, Dalits, Indigenous peoples, and Madhesis should compete among themselves according to their clusters to make the House of Representatives and provincial assemblies fully proportional and directly elected.

Parliament is focused only on making rules, acts, and laws. A directly elected President appoints experts as ministers. When that happens, there is good governance and stability.

An inclusive Parliament makes acts and laws ensuring the rights and interests of everyone. It also provides a “check and balance” on the executive. Now this system is appropriate. To implement this system, the government can be formed in the same way as it is currently formed.

Parliamentary practice has been in place for more than three decades, but has this system been discredited not because of the Constitution but because of the intentions of the rulers?

How can one measure the intentions of the rulers? Instead of giving priority to intentions, we should give priority to the system. Since 1959, no Parliament has ever completed a full five-year term.

Einstein used to say that repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is madness. Haven’t we been doing the same? Why hesitate to adopt a better alternative? The people have already revolted so much.

If even now we fail to understand the next generations, we will be deemed incompetent. Therefore, it is no longer appropriate to delay changing the system.

Then, should the arrangement of a directly elected executive President be made through constitutional amendment before the elections?

What is so big about this? Currently, the President can issue an ordinance on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. Then, the Parliament formed after the elections approves it for legality.

According to the current Constitution, a person outside Parliament cannot be Prime Minister. A former Chief Justice cannot become Prime Minister, and Parliament cannot be dissolved without completing Article 76(5). In such a situation, how did we form the interim government? We did everything according to the principle of necessity. Therefore, now, to address the main demand of Gen Z, the principle of necessity should also be applied.

You mentioned electing a directly elected executive President, but currently the administration, judiciary, and governance bodies have systemic problems. How and when will these be reformed?

This year, it became clear how corrupt and rotten our administrative mechanism has become. Our security forces, known worldwide as brave Gorkhalis, are famous in many countries for maintaining peace. But this time, the Singha Durbar in front of the military headquarters and the courts were burned. Not a single fire engine was deployed. Even the army, said to be the most disciplined and strong institution, showed such weakness. Let alone the police, civil administration, and judiciary.

Even under Gen Z’s leadership, there is hesitation. How many people will come forward? I have suggested to them to first choose their leadership and, through that leadership, present their demands in a structured way to the Prime Minister.

Therefore, a new kind of restructuring of all state organs is necessary. But before that, political reform must take place. The election of a directly elected executive President opens the way for further reform.

Other issues can also be reformed by Parliament. Gen Z has said that those who have exploited the state and engaged in corruption must have their assets investigated and immediate action taken. This demand can be fulfilled now.

A powerful commission can be established to investigate these individuals, freeze or confiscate their assets, and start the process of action. I see a little hesitation in the government regarding this.

Gen Z protesters should reach an agreement with the Prime Minister and, if necessary, also implement it through an ordinance. We had organized the movement systematically. It started with 40 demands. It continued through 12 points, leading to a peace agreement. Even then, things are delayed. The peace process has not been completed for 18 years. Gen Z youth do not even have written demands. In that sense, a process must also be completed.

Even in 1979, the student movement that began in Nepal protesting the execution of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto led to a public referendum. Therefore, movements can start from anywhere, but the substance of the movement is political.

Can not the issue you raised be addressed through a public referendum?

Even to hold a referendum, a process is necessary. Holding a referendum after a movement can become more emotional. The easiest thing is to reform the electoral system itself.

The current electoral system has itself become a source of corruption. It became a factor of instability. Due to corruption and instability, there was misgovernance, and misgovernance did not bring prosperity; everyone has accepted that this caused anger among the youth.

In this, civil society, media, and the intellectual community need to provide advice and suggestions to Gen Z. Because Gen Z is also confused. Even if they are confused now, it will not last long. History either moves forward or goes backward.

If we cannot manage the current situation and move it forward, wrong forces will come even more organized. In a complex geopolitical situation like ours, if foreign powers become active, the country could move toward further disaster. Therefore, everyone must act wisely in time.

You spoke about geopolitics. After the Gen Z movement, how do you see the country’s geopolitical situation?

By the world’s population, Nepal is between the first and second countries. Economically, we are between the first and third countries. The coming decade is being called the Asian century. Therefore, this Himalayan region will automatically become the world’s largest geopolitical center. For Nepal, this is both a threat and a good opportunity.

From the beginning, the idea of maintaining balanced relations with both India and China has been there. But in the recent phase, the ruling parties, according to their self-interest, sometimes leaned one way, sometimes the other, and distorted the country’s foreign relations.

Now the time has come to present Nepal as a center of peace in the world. Every center of power has its own interests. We do not have the capacity to intervene and resolve that. They have their own ego and interests. The only weapon we can use is peace. This is also the country where Buddha was born, so by coincidence, it is also a symbol of peace.

Geopolitics has various dimensions and facets. Geographically, if we say one-third of the Himalayas, 20–25 percent of the land area is also beyond the Himalayas. But in that area, the population is probably eight-tenths percent.

According to that, geographically, we are turned toward the south. With the south, there is more trade and closeness. Where there is more interaction, there are also problems. That continues with the south. With the north, trade is less and there are not many problems.

The current world, due to technology, which yesterday was called “landlocked,” is now also being called “landlinked.” Now it has even become “skylinked.” Since the newly born world in the new era is interconnected, the interest of the West and other powers has naturally emerged.

In terms of security, economy, and all aspects, any country is now connected to any other country. In this perspective, there is a risk of geopolitical maneuvering and conflict primarily among the powers of the south, north, and west.

After the formation of the government, it seemed that the West and India were excited, and China seemed hesitant. What exactly happened?

Past rulers, for their own self-interest, would sometimes lean toward someone, sometimes bow to someone. I am a person who, even when dealing with neighbors, neither bows when I shouldn’t nor leans when I shouldn’t.

Looking at the behavior of those who were in power before, it seems that the southern and western powers have dominated the current change.

The northern power is also a superpower in the coming days. It is a good neighbor and friend for us. Historically, we have not had major problems with China. But in the current change, it is estimated that China is somewhat cautious.

However, we must be confident that we neither provoke the south, north, or west nor lean toward anyone. It is necessary to demonstrate through behavior that we maintain our sovereignty and have friendly relations with everyone.

Some accuse that there was foreign intrusion in the Gen Z movement. Is this just an accusation or also the truth?

Whether there was foreign intrusion in the movement will be investigated by a commission. Although the movement on the first day was peaceful, it was provoked by unnecessary use of force.

What happened the next day was a natural response against the state’s repression on the first day. However, considering the style in which key symbolic centers of the state were attacked, there is reason to suspect possible intrusion. Important centers like Singha Durbar, the Supreme Court, the Parliament building, and the President’s residence were set on fire.

In a movement, merely occupying a place or throwing stones in a brief outburst is normal. But there is reason to suspect that wrong elements were active in systematically burning political party offices and leaders’ houses.

There is concern whether elections will be held on the announced date. What happens if elections are not held?

There should be no place for concern that elections will not happen. Disreputable figures from the past may again try to disrupt elections through various conspiracies and manipulations.

Geopolitical maneuvering could also occur. We must remain vigilant and move toward holding elections in time. If elections cannot happen, democracy will slip away. If the Constitution also goes out of scope, the country will fall into an even greater crisis.

After the election of a directly elected executive, a five- to twenty-year plan should be made and a roadmap created to move from an extremely underdeveloped state to a developed state within twenty years.

Nepal must plan to increase per capita income from the current 1,400 dollars to 14,000 dollars within twenty years. If this is not achieved, we will remain stuck in incremental, fragmented reforms. If we only start building roads, flyovers, and community centers, even in the 50th year, we will not reach anywhere.

The economy itself must move in a way that allows structural reform. No country in the world where 60 percent of the population depends on agriculture is prosperous.

The rules of the economy say the same. The population engaged in agriculture must be reduced to 15–20 percent, and employment must be created within the country.

Without rapid industrialization through the mobilization of domestic and foreign capital and the use of technology, national development is not possible. Along with that, Nepal can become a hub in sectors such as services, energy, tourism, IT, education, and health.

If progress is made in this, the country can be brought from its currently extremely underdeveloped state to a developed state within 20 years. The condition for this is, again, political stability.

In the events of September 8 and 9, it seems that, in one way, the anger of society against wealthy people was reflected. On the other hand, it also appears that challenges to foreign investment are added. How could be this issue resolved?

Not everyone’s capacity or morale is equal. There is no equal competition between the weak and the strong. Whoever moves a little ahead begins to look down on those behind. Those looked down upon begin to feel inferiority and develop resentment. This is human nature. If their thinking is changed through moral and scientific education, this mindset can be changed within 8-10 years.

Being wealthy is not bad; it is a good thing. But here, a system has been established where a handful of people exploit state power, misuse resources, and only nurture those close to them. This created a situation where a few are extremely wealthy and the majority are poor. If a roadmap is presented for everyone to become wealthy, this tendency will automatically disappear.

In Nepal, foreign investment has not come due to political instability and policy instability. If there is stability, external investment will come abundantly. A major advantage for us is that neighboring China is the world’s largest economy, and India is the third largest. We have such a large market.

If we can adopt a development policy linked to the value chain of the two, a transformation is possible within 10 years. To bring such thoughtful leadership, reform in the system is indispensable.

But, doesn’t the current series of events completely undermine investors’ confidence?

Not right now. First, let us make systemic reforms, go to elections, and bring a stable government. In 2007, I was Finance Minister, and we had just come through the peace process. The dream was to build a new Nepal. Being a student of political economy myself, I had advanced this idea.

I was the one who introduced the concept of the Investment Board, emphasizing that cooperatives and investment are two pillars. I proposed creating a nationwide network of cooperatives, advancing small and medium industries, and mobilizing foreign capital and technology for large industries through the Investment Board.

At that time, only six small countries had bilateral agreements for capital, technology, and investment. I made a BIPPA agreement to negotiate with major countries like India and China.

But, people opposed it without understanding. I could not even convince my own party. It was left stranded. One opportunity was lost. Now people understand.

We must bring in capital and technology through consensus and agreements with everyone. We must move toward importing capital and technology and exporting goods, not labor. This can be done, and must be done.

Regarding the current change, old parties have become oppositional, and even among new parties there is no consensus. The disorganized Gen Z movement was done by one group, but another says they are leading. In such a situation, what challenges do you see for the new government?

The solution must be sought through politics, and political parties must lead this in democracy. Because old parties did not reform in time, Gen Z has buried them; now they must not be allowed to raise their heads.

Relying on the Constitution, new and alternative forces must come together in one place. My suggestion is to move forward by forming a broad alternative front.

I have also relinquished party leadership to focus on providing collective guidance rather than leading a single party. I do not seek to be a leader myself.

My effort is to bring Gen Z and new alternative forces together in one place. For that, I contribute as much as my knowledge and experience allow.

Second- and third-generation members of old parties and new-generation people can also rebel from their positions to reorganize the party in a new way. If that happens, power formed through restructuring and power from the new can create another force.

This option could be ready within a few months. The current government can facilitate that. The government must ensure good governance, peace, and security, and create an election environment through necessary constitutional amendments. Anyone trying to find an excuse will walk the path of their own destruction.

The Rastriya Swatantra Party showed the possibility of becoming a new alternative force within its formation of seven months. But now the situation looks different. Where has the confusion appeared?

In reality, society’s consciousness is like this. People want immediate results. Our theistic consciousness, royalist consciousness seeks heroism. This is where we do the spoiling work. First, we make someone a hero, then reduce them to zero. We must look at the agenda, not the individual.

Attention must be on what the problem is and how to solve it. Then, as work proceeds, the people will choose who is suitable in democracy.

Now, around the country’s main political, economic, social, and geopolitical agenda, new and alternative forces must come together. They must converge on the core fundamental elements of the Constitution. We move forward, not backward, beyond the Constitution.

Your “track record” as Finance Minister and Prime Minister is considered good. But at times, political experiments or uncertainty regarding relationships with old parties makes you appear politically “lost.” Do you feel you have failed anywhere?

I am talking about the new generation. I also contributed regarding the old generation. It is a historical fact that I was at the forefront of establishing the Federal Democratic Republic and the Constituent Assembly. Now I am active for the new generation.

I am also an engineer. Mapping and implementing that takes time. Essentially, the country is moving along the path I suggested. The new generation has arrived. I am very happy. Previously, I promoted Upendra Yadav, Mahanta Thakur, Ashok Rai, among others. I stayed fourth in line.

The Naya Shakti Party is still operated by new members. Currently, new figures Balen Shah, Harka Sampang, Gopi Hamal, and others have emerged. The nearly 3 million Gen Z members who have come together as a new force must unite to form an alternative force. I will support that.

India has been practicing the parliamentary system since 1947. We are saying we must change the governance system within a decade. What is the reason?

India has a colonial background. That may also be why, when building the foundation for a modern industrial economy, networks like railways and large educational institutions advanced India more than us.

In culture, tradition, and economy, we are far behind. In Nepal, the kings and maharajas ruled with decree, but large developmental institutions were not built.

For national unity and stability, a directly elected executive is convenient. The Parliament must be fully proportional. Diversity cannot be addressed without a proportional Parliament. Combining these two is in the interest of the country.

The current British-model parliamentary system we have is rarely seen in underdeveloped countries. In many Asian, African, and Latin American countries, there is a presidential system. European countries mostly have mixed systems.

Since there is a possibility of wrong rulers coming from time to time, there must be a provision to remove them through elections or have Parliament provide “checks and balances.”

There is a proposal from Gen Z for a directly elected Prime Minister. What is your take on this?

That is a misunderstanding. Nowhere in the world is there a directly elected Prime Minister. Israel tried it briefly; it didn’t work.

In the second Constituent Assembly, over 80% of members chose a presidential system. I chaired the committee. Because of Nepali Congress and CPN (UML) obstinacy, we delayed. Monarchists tried to manipulate it to restore the crown; young people should avoid that trap. I suggested this to youth.

There is widespread debate that federalism has become burdensome and costly. Is it time to restructure?

Disputes over boundaries and naming existed from the beginning. By reducing the number of provincial assemblies and ministers, expenses can be cut. Districts barely exist; only District Coordination Committees does. The old bureaucracy dominated, centering power in Chief District Officers, contrary to federalism.

The public still dreams of radical state transformation. Is the delay due to systemic/structural reasons or weak leadership?

Radical change hasn’t completely failed. Democracy wasn’t fully implemented. The Maoist movement gave a big push, and the 2006 joint people’s movement established a federal republic. The Constituent Assembly produced the constitution. Politically, a major leap occurred. Don’t underestimate it.

The economic and social leap needed good governance and effective administration. There were serious flaws, leading to 20 lost years. Inept and corrupt rulers emerged.

This movement is supplementary—not to destroy the old system, but to complete its unfinished potential. All problems have their roots in the governance system.

Do you want to become a directly elected President yourself?

I do not gamble with politics. I dedicate my life to societal transformation and human upliftment. Truth and justice are my ideals. Ending discrimination against women, Dalits, indigenous peoples, Madhesis, and marginalized groups is my goal.

For me, position and prestige never mattered, and at 70, I desire neither. My only dream is to show the path to the new generation.