Nepal: An electoral test for Gen Z
Nepal is in the throes of a defining moment in its democratic journey, marked by disruption and instability. As the date of the general elections draws near, there is quiet unease in a country that witnessed turmoil last September, when Gen Z rose and toppled the Oli government. What began as a protest against restrictions on social media access quickly turned into widespread unrest. Since then, the streets have remained calm under the caretaker government led by Sushila Karki, who has limited her role to overseeing the elections and handing power to the newly elected government on March 5.
Like India, Nepal is a young nation, with many voters in their thirties and forties - but the similarity ends there. Nepal has struggled to consolidate democracy and institutionalise its electoral processes, often producing chaos instead of stability. Since the fall of the monarchy in 2008, the country has seen fourteen governments led by eight prime ministers. Unsurprisingly, public confidence in conventional democratic politics has weakened, and the Gen Z uprising was its natural corollary. Now that Nepal’s youth are calling the shots, the onus lies on them to deliver stable governance - and, if necessary, to consider constitutional amendments to achieve it. The election process is under way, and voter registration centres are seeing long queues of first-time voters who could decisively influence the outcome.
The fall of the KP Sharma Oli government was abrupt, but it did not resolve Nepal’s underlying crises - unemployment, weak economic growth, strained relations with regional powers and persistent challenges to law and order. The interim government led by retired jurist Sushila Karki has politely but firmly rejected demands for constitutional overhaul. While this restraint may safeguard institutional continuity, it risks alienating protesters who had demanded more sweeping change.
This election is crucial. The old order appears to be giving way — and although elections may not solve every problem, they will certainly bring new political actors to the fore. The rise of parties led by technocrats, professionals and younger leaders suggests a tentative shift from old politics to new. Figures such as Kul Man Ghising and Birendra Bahadur Basnet symbolise competence and credibility, though whether they will prevail remains uncertain. Established parties, meanwhile, appear defensive, tied up in legal disputes and internal divisions even as they prepare to contest the polls.
The greatest test is whether Gen Z’s energy — so effective on the streets — can survive the compromises of electoral politics. Movements thrive on moral clarity; elections require organisation, patience and negotiation. Security concerns during the polls remain real — escaped prisoners, looted weapons and sporadic clashes could easily overshadow the process. Whether Nepal can meet this challenge remains to be seen.
