This festive season, a mix of hope and unease has taken hold of Nepal.
Following the ouster of the K.P. Sharma Oli government in the wake of the Gen Z uprising, a new interim government has been formed under former Chief Justice Sushila Karki. Few regret the fall of the unpopular Oli or the rise of a clean figure like Karki. But lack of clarity on the road ahead also adds to people’s anxiety.
The new government has the singular mandate of holding nationwide elections on March 5, 2026. Ensuring the participation of a broad range of political actors in the elections would be the biggest challenge to ending the post-revolt transition.
As unpopular as their top leaders are, the established political parties – the Nepali Congress, the Communist Party Nepal–Unified Marxist-Leninist (CPN-UML) and the CPN Maoist Center – are still major stakeholders in Nepali politics. The involvement of – and thus the endorsement of – these three biggest parties in the outgoing Parliament will be vital for the legitimacy of elections.
But the parties are yet to welcome the new regime under the ex-chief justice. Instead, they have called for a reversal of the unconstitutional dissolution of Parliament. There is no provision in the national charter for someone from outside Parliament to be prime minister – much less to dissolve the house.
The old parties face a dilemma. Their aging and unpopular leaders remain in place. It will be hard for these parties to choose new leaders in time for elections only six months away. Even if they somehow pick new leaders, will these parties be ready to contest elections so soon after the uprising – at a time when the public sentiment is firmly against them?
The three forces have alternately led the government since the promulgation of the new constitution in 2015. Before Karki came to power, eight governments had been formed since 2015 – all of them led by either Sher Bahadur Deuba (head of the Congress), K.P. Oli (the CPN-UML) or Pushpa Kamal Dahal (the Maoist Center). All these regimes were notorious for their odious promotion of corruption and nepotism.
Then there is the matter of logistics. Six months may not be enough for the Election Commission to prepare for elections in what will be a difficult political transition.
The Karki government has issued an ordinance to include members of Gen Z in electoral rolls. This will consume vital time. In addition, there is pressure to enlist millions of Nepalis who live abroad. This will be even harder to achieve in the given timeframe. And without timely elections, Nepal risks slipping into a troubling political and constitutional vacuum.
The Security Riddle
Likewise, security challenges will be in a class of their own. Intelligence agencies foresee disruptive political protests in the days ahead, across the country. But the Nepal Police, an agency primarily entrusted with ensuring law and order as well as poll security, is unprepared and demoralized.
During the Gen Z revolt, the arms and uniforms of the police were looted. Unruly mobs made many of them march in their underwear. Around 400 police posts were set on fire, as were the majority of their vehicles. Boosting the morale of the force and empowering them with the right resources – and so soon – will be a challenge.
The intent of the Nepali Army is also suspect. As secondary actors in poll security, army personnel are also involved in vital tasks like transporting ballot boxes. The political parties are questioning why the nearly 100,000-strong army chose to watch from the sidelines as the country burned.
For instance, the army did not intervene even when the President’s House, located next to one of the major army barracks in the national capital, was set on fire – even though the president is the army’s supreme commander.
Following the Oli government’s fall, the army also facilitated talks between Gen Z representatives and the president and then helped install the new Karki-led government.
Did the army want to see the Oli government fall? Is it fed up with the old parties, or again cozying up to the ousted monarch? The monarchy — the country’s most stable and strongest institution is under new scrutiny. In its defense, the army says its involvement in controlling protests could have led to more bloodshed and if it had ulterior motives, it would not have swiftly transferred power to a civilian.
Further complicating things will be the new drive to establish who was responsible for police firings that led to the killing of at least 20 young students on the first day of Gen Z protests. The government says it will punish the instigators. At the same time, it will investigate the properties of political leaders.
There is immense public pressure to prosecute corrupt leaders and those accused of suppressing the Gen Z revolt – both groups closely linked to the old parties. For the new government, it will be tough to bring them to book while also trying to build an atmosphere for free, fair and participatory elections.
Then there are the monarchists. They have been looking to capitalize on anger against mainstream parties and use it to build support for restoring the monarchy and Hindu state. Helping them will be the Hindutva forces in India, the giant next door, who want Nepal to ditch its secular status. Nepal’s pro-monarchy and pro-Hindu constituencies don’t exactly overlap, but the distinction is hard to make at this time of political tumult.
The Foreign Hands
There is also a belief that India would be happy to see the current Nepali constitution fail. The charter incorporates an updated map of Nepal that includes territories that India claims. If this constitution collapses, then Nepal loses its claim over those territories. India was unhappy with Nepal’s 2020 inclusion of the new territory in its charter.
India has otherwise played a measured role in the post-revolt phase. During political negotiations after Oli’s fall, it reportedly advised the Nepali Army, which was a mediator in the talks, to work within the current constitutional framework. New Delhi quickly welcomed the new Karki government and said it would help organize snap polls.
Along with India, the two other major international actors in Nepal, China and the United States, also reportedly advised the army to try to find solutions within the framework of the constitution.
These international actors might have played a hands-off role up until now. But if they feel their interests are at stake, they could intervene. To take one example, thousands of criminals escaped Nepali prisons during the Gen Z uprising, and India fears they might cross into its territories through the open border with Nepal. In that case, the border might be difficult to cross for commoners.
There are also conspiracy theories about the Gen Z protests being backed by the Dalai Lama. The swift welcome of the Karki government by the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government in exile in Dharmashala will not have escaped China’s notice. The Tibetan spiritual leader congratulating a new head of government in Nepal is a rare occurrence. (China’s welcome of Karki as interim prime minister was muted compared to the congratulatory tones of India and the U.S.)
Similarly, in another conspiracy theory doing the rounds of social media, multiple members of the new Cabinet have been linked to the U.S. government and even the CIA. These conspiracy theories are similar to those floated in Bangladesh after the overthrow of Sheikh Hasina government last year. Monarchists in particular are gleefully propagating claims of the “CIA-backed” Karki government.
There is no credible evidence to support these conspiracies. To suggest foreigners engineered the change would be a grave injustice to the tens of thousands of young protesters who rose against the excesses of Nepal’s entrenched political elite.
But the longer this transitional period drags on, the greater the chances of involvement of international actors. In that case, they might start taking sides as Nepal’s political future is being shaped. China is more amenable to having a strong, directly elected executive head in Nepal, while India, which has in the past played favourites among Nepali political parties to install a government of its choice in Kathmandu, will be more inclined to give continuity to the current parliamentary system.
Gen Z: Hope and Confusion
Right now, there is still hope. The swiftness with which the new government was formed and the way the army facilitated transfer to a clean, civilian leadership – in consultation with major powers – was heartening. Credible figures are now in the Cabinet. The ouster of the old political establishment had become a necessity. It will be almost impossible for the same three leaders to make a political comeback. There has also been a much-needed increase in political consciousness of the otherwise apathetic Gen Z, who make up the bulk of the national population.
Even amid all the uncertainties, the prospect of a new Nepal under a new generation is exciting. Yet the Gen Z leaders too are divided, with competing demands.
When youths were called to gather at Maitighar in Kathmandu on September 8 to protest a ban on social media sites, many came voluntarily. It was a leaderless movement, sparked by the antipathy against the political class, anger at pervasive corruption and nepotism, and the more immediate concern of reversing the social media ban.
The Oli government did not take the movement seriously. On the eve of planned protests, instead of calling for calm, Oli mocked the gathering. Not enough police personnel were deployed on the first day.
The Gen Z organizers had called for those with political affiliations to stay away from protests. But there was widespread infiltration, as the organizers themselves admit. The infiltrators provoked the ill-prepared security forces, which in turn led to the tragic loss of at least 20 young lives on the first day.
The second day of the revolt was mayhem, with protesters burning government offices, ransacking businesses, and destroying popular media outlets. It was a deliberately targeted campaign. On that day, over 50 people died and hundreds were seriously injured. The country incurred heavy economic damages.
Everyone has distanced themselves from the deaths and destruction, and yet multiple claimants have emerged for the leadership of the Gen Z movement.
Were the protests led by Sudan Gurung, who was also instrumental in installing Sushila Karki as the new prime minister? Or was it Miraj Dhungana, who helped organize the Gen Z movement without himself being present in the protests? Or was it a dubious pro-monarchy figure like Durga Prasai, who says the movement would never have succeeded without his involvement? Or some other youth leader?
The problem is that different claimants to the leadership of the Gen Z movement have different agendas. For instance, the Gurung-led group appears comfortable with the idea of holding new parliamentary elections and letting the new legislature decide on a new form of government.
Yet the Dhungana-led group says the country’s governance system should immediately be changed and the next election should be for a directly elected executive head – not another Parliament that can be co-opted by the political parties. Another smaller faction of Gen Z wants the monarchy restored.
As Karki has said, it is not within the mandate of her government to change the governance system, and any such changes will have to take place through the new legislature. Yet having come to power on the back of the Gen Z movement and lacking a popular mandate, it might not be for her to decide alone.
Likewise, another big demand of a section of the Gen Z protesters is that the provinces under the three-tier federal model be scrapped. But again, this cannot be done in the absence of Parliament. Scrapping provinces will also imperil federalism. And if the federal setup, which is the centerpiece of the new constitution, is gone, then the whole constitution could collapse.
Just as the big parties are confused about elections, so are the Gen Z leaders. Can they establish political parties with nationwide presence and appeal in time for the elections? If yes, how many competing Gen Z parties will emerge? And could divisions among them open the door for authoritarian forces?
It will be difficult for Nepal to conduct elections within the next six months, even if everything goes well. And things are far from smooth right now.