A month has passed since the September 8-9 uprising that shook Nepal’s political establishment from its core, forcing rapid and dramatic changes. The unprecedented Gen Z movement toppled the K.P. Sharma Oli-led government, resulting in the formation of an interim government under former Chief Justice Sushila Karki. Nepal’s streets are now momentarily calm, but the nation stands at a political crossroads. Whether Nepal can transform the movement’s energy into lasting democratic stability remains a difficult question.
The interim government has announced a fresh election for March 5, 2026, but uncertainty clouds the path forward. Nepal’s two biggest political parties, the Nepali Congress (NC) and the Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist-Leninist (CPN-UML) remain internally divided and have not officially committed to the declared election. Factions within these political parties are split on whether to move ahead with elections or to push for the reinstatement of the dissolved House of Representatives, claiming its dissolution as unconstitutional.
Deepening the gridlock, Oli – the ousted prime minister who is still the CPN-UML chair – publicly rejected the legitimacy of the Karki-led interim government and declared that his party would not participate in the elections under its authority. This stance has also found resonance among dissenting voices within the NC, thus widening the political rift that now defines Nepal’s fragile transition.
These developments expose a troubling reality. Rather than engaging in genuine retrospection on what drove the young generation to the streets, party leaders seem focused on preserving their political relevance, risking a repeat of the very dysfunction that triggered the upheaval. An even more troubling possibility is electoral futility. What if the March 2026 election simply reinstates the status quo, bringing back the same political parties, the same faces, and the same patterns of governance to power? The longer these uncertainties loom, the greater the risk of undermining the credibility of the interim government and eroding public trust in the transition.
Divided Gen Z Groups
Initially united by frustration with corruption, nepotism, and entrenched political elites, the protest movement is now divided over its future agenda. Significant ideological and strategic divisions have emerged among different Gen Z groups and this has complicated negotiations with the government. Some want to work within the current constitutional framework to tackle corruption and strengthen democratic institutions, while others are calling for constitutional changes, including a directly elected executive head to replace the current parliamentary system. Royalist leaning groups, on the other hand, are trying to advance their agenda for the restoration of the monarchy. With multiple groups claiming the mantle of leadership, these divisions have added another layer of structural fragility to the movement.
Meanwhile, families of those killed during the protests have filed complaints against Oli and Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak, accusing them of serious crimes in the shooting of student protesters on September 8. These cases have been forwarded to the High Level Judicial Commissions, which is caught between managing growing political pressure and ensuring judicial accountability. In response, youth groups affiliated to the CPN-UML have filed counter-complaints against Gen Z leaders, Kathmandu Mayor Balen Shah, content creators, and a few others supporting the protest, accusing them of vandalism or enticing vandalism during the protest.
This escalating cycle of mutual accusations is deepening the distance between Gen Z protesters and party-affiliated youth wings, raising fears of political polarization and retaliation ahead of the elections. The coming months will show whether Nepal can seize this critical juncture for genuine democratic renewal or will succumb to the past patterns of regime change without achieving lasting political stability.
Regime Change Without Stability
Over the last 70-plus years, Nepal has seen major regime changes; from the Rana regime to a monarchy; from the party-less panchayat system to a constitutional monarchy; from a monarchy to a federal democratic republic. Each transformation promised hope but was followed by instability: regime instability, governmental instability, and constitutional instability.
The current political reversal led by Gen Z has upended yet another order in Nepal’s political history. Nepal’s history suggests the country is in for a somewhat painful journey. Political leaders have been successful in overthrowing regimes, governments, and systems over the years, but they have failed to maintain a sustainable democratic order.
This never-ending cycle stems from structural weakness in Nepal’s political order, which is built around nepotism, patronage and rent-seeking behavior. Political parties, rather than growing as strong and credible institutions, have become highly personalized, factionalized and heavily reliant on patron-client relationships. Nepal ranks 107th out of 180 countries in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index. This has persistently held back Nepal’s democratization process.
Nepal’s political instability is worsened by its socioeconomic conditions. While the constitution largely emphasizes welfarism, the lack of economic opportunity forces more than 800,000 people to leave the country each year to earn a living. Over 20 percent of Nepal’s total population still lives below the poverty line, and youth unemployment stands at 20 percent.
Given Nepal’s weak state institutions and the lack of accountability in politics, protests remain the only option for citizens to express their discontent and demand changes. However, the endless cycle of changes in regimes, governments, and systems have dashed people’s hope for a true democracy.
The 2025 Gen Z uprising marks both a break from and continuation of Nepal’s long history of protest. Unlike earlier movements driven by organized parties or civil coalitions, this movement was spontaneous, decentralized, and digitally coordinated. Yet it faces significant limitations. The movement’s leaderless character, lack of coherent strategy, and absence of a strong institutional foundation has led to divisions and threatens its future. Even Gen Z representatives are debating who directed the uprising at its inception or who should guide it now.
The Way Forward
The Karki-led interim government now shoulders a generational experiment and the opportunity to reshape Nepal’s democratic future. The road ahead, however, is not straight. Restoring political order, proving the interim government’s legitimacy, and translating the movement’s momentum into institutional renewal are the major challenges ahead. Rebuilding public trust in governance long weakened by years of corruption and elite capture must remain the government’s immediate priority. Equally critical is impartial investigation of protest-related violence, addressing both state-sanctioned abuses and acts of vandalism by activists.
It is also important to manage political exclusion and potential boycotts. The Gen Z revolution has no doubt challenged the legitimacy of Nepal’s major political parties but these parties remain entrenched powerholders who still control the democratic process. Their absence now risks creating a parallel power structure that could impact governance, undermine the legitimacy of the March 2026 elections, and possibly trigger backlash. Nepal’s interim government should develop strategies to engage with traditional political actors entrenched in the system of patronage and corruption. Karki must also tackle inherent contradictions within the Gen Z movement. Though it emerged as a nonstate actor against political elites, governing requires some form of structured interaction with political institutions.
If the interim government fails to hold elections in the spring of 2026, Nepal risks entering into another period of political instability and institutional uncertainty. Conversely, even if elections happen as planned, there is no assurance of substantive transformation, and established parties may retain influence. The structural and institutional weaknesses that Gen Z protested against are deeply embedded within Nepal’s political system and will require sustained long-term efforts to address.
To avoid repeating the cycle of regime change without stability, focus should be given to realistic priorities. Restoring basic state functions, ensuring security, boosting the morale of security personnel, and holding elections on time are the immediate actions. In the long run, democratic consolidation should go hand in hand with institutional strengthening, a shift in political culture, and building of public trust in state mechanisms. Only then can Nepal avoid the fate of earlier revolutions: regime change without regime stability.