By Janardan Subedi
The appointment of Sushila Karki as Nepal’s first female Prime Minister has sparked celebrations in the streets and across online platforms. Many see this moment as a sign of progress, a symbolic step toward gender equality, and even a win for a new generation—Gen Z. But behind the headlines and hashtags, there are deeper questions that need to be addressed. Does Karki truly represent the hopes of the Gen-Z movement pushing for systemic change? Or is this just another example of Nepal’s long-standing pattern of superficial reforms that do not alter the core system of governance?
To answer these questions, we need to contextualize this development within Nepal’s institutional, constitutional, and generational frameworks. Celebrating personalities while ignoring structural issues has been a common theme in Nepali politics for decades. The case of Sushila Karki as Prime Minister risks repeating this pattern—confusing superficial change with deep, meaningful transformation.
The Generational Question: Who Speaks for Gen Z?
Globally, Generation Z—those born roughly between 1997 and 2012—has become a powerful advocate for transparency, meritocracy, inclusion, and accountability. In Nepal, this group is uniquely positioned: they are digitally connected, globally aware, and highly frustrated with the deep-rooted corruption, nepotism, and dysfunction of older political elites.
When young Nepalis took to social media and public spaces to demand change, they weren’t seeking a 74-year-old figure to be appointed Prime Minister through backroom deals. Instead, they were pushing for fundamental reforms: free and fair elections, an accountable government, equal opportunities, and a future free from past mistakes. Essentially, Gen Z was fighting against corruption, nepotism, and the deeply rooted culture of elite privilege that has long undermined Nepal’s political and social institutions.
Although Sushila Karki is the first female Chief Justice in the country, she is not a symbol for an entire generation. She is a product of the same constitutional and political system that Gen Z has actively rejected. Just because she’s a woman doesn’t mean she embodies the hopes of a generation pushing for systemic change.
The Constitution and Its Contradictions
At the heart of this paradox is Nepal’s 2015 Constitution, which was hurriedly passed during political negotiations. Originally seen as a new beginning for the country, it ended up perpetuating the same issues it was meant to resolve. The constitution centralized power within party hierarchies, left the judiciary vulnerable to political influence, and failed to establish real checks and balances in practice.
It was this constitution that allowed Karki to become Chief Justice, just as it has helped many compromised figures rise to power. If the same constitution is the foundation for her premiership, how can it suddenly be seen as meeting Gen Z’s radical call for a systemic overhaul?
If we believe that Madam Sushila Karki’s appointment is entirely within the scope of the current constitution, we are making a grave mistake. The constitution explicitly states that individuals who have previously served as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court cannot be appointed to executive government positions. Even if her appointment has been considered “constitutional,” it raises more questions: What does this say about the flexibility—or manipulation—of constitutional rules? How can the current Chief Justice witness and approve an appointment that is arguably illegitimate? This isn’t just a procedural error; it’s a theatrical farce that undermines the legitimacy of the office and questions the sincerity of constitutional loyalty.
After all, younger people have repeatedly criticized the constitution for being too exclusive, failing to address their priorities, and being controlled by top party leaders. Putting a Prime Minister in place under this framework doesn’t address those concerns; it just avoids them.
Institutions Without Trust
One of the main questions now is: who will oversee Nepal’s next election? The answer is sobering. The same discredited institutions remain in place—the President’s office, the bureaucracy, the police, the Election Commission—all of which have been linked to partisanship, inefficiency, or outright corruption.
Replacing the top leadership in government doesn’t automatically improve these institutions. As institutional theorists emphasize, legitimacy comes from the consistent and impartial application of rules and procedures, not from the people in charge (North, 1990; March & Olsen, 2006). In Nepal, institutions still serve the interests of the elite rather than defending democracy fairly. Therefore, hoping for credible elections is unrealistic.
It’s more than just speculation. Take a look at recent scandals, like the fake Bhutanese refugee scam that involved senior leaders, the misuse of state resources during elections, and the selective enforcement of laws to benefit the ruling elites. Each of these examples highlights how Nepal’s institutions protect powerful interests rather than promote accountability. As a result, Gen Z’s distrust of these institutions is not only justified but also supported by evidence.
The Symbolism of Sushila Karki
To be clear, the critique here is not of Sushila Karki as a person. Her role as Nepal’s first female Chief Justice was truly historic, and her appointment broke gender barriers in the judiciary. However, her reputation during her tenure was not entirely positive; it was controversial. If we listen closely to her legal peers and the broader legal community, questions arise about her overall ability, judgment, and independence. These debates add complexity to the idea of her as a reformist or a perfect figure.
Still, the symbolism of her leadership risks being used to create the illusion of change without fundamental transformation. This is a typical pattern in Nepali politics. We’ve celebrated “firsts” before: the first republic, the first federal system, the first secular constitution. Each was praised as a break from the past, but each eventually became part of the same cycle of elite manipulation and institutional decay. Without structural reform, symbols alone cannot bring real change.
The Six-Month Mandate: Wishful Thinking or Structural Trap?
Adding to the paradox, Karki has been given a six-month mandate to hold elections. However, the reality on the ground could not be grimmer. Many government buildings remain burned or under attack, while corrupt politicians, bureaucrats, security officials, businesspeople, and cartels are reportedly enjoying wine and dine at army quarters. In this context, the expectation that one Prime Minister can simultaneously reform institutions, amend policies, restore trust, and deliver credible elections in just half a year is nearly absurd.
Is Karki viewed as a miracle worker expected to fulfill all of Gen Z’s hopes, rebuild the country, and protect sovereignty in an unbelievably short period? Such expectations are not only unrealistic but also indicate a misunderstanding of how deep Nepal’s crisis truly is.
Here’s a harsh irony: The Gen-Z movement, with its sacrifices (30 dead and still counting) and energy, appears to have been taken over by others—including outside influences. The youth who called for systemic reform now see their fight being reshaped into simply installing a leader created by the very system they oppose. Far from renewing change, the movement’s momentum risks being diverted to maintain existing power structures.
Sovereignty and the Role of the Army
It’s also essential to face the uncomfortable reality of sovereignty. Although discussions in Nepal often center on the potential loss of sovereignty in the future, the fact is that sovereignty has already been eroded. International actors, regional powers, and entrenched domestic elites have all influenced outcomes, often silencing the people’s voice.
The Nepal Army, once regarded as a defender of sovereignty, had another chance in this moment to prove its role as a national protector. Instead, it contributed to the loss of national trust, opening the door for external influences and the institutionalization of foreign interests. This neglect will be remembered as yet another missed opportunity to defend dignity and sovereignty.
Conclusion: The Need for Structural Clarity
Nepal today faces a crucial moment. The celebration of Sushila Karki’s premiership risks overshadowing the real challenges ahead: rebuilding trust in institutions, reforming the constitution, and ensuring that Gen Z’s calls for accountability and transparency are genuinely addressed rather than just symbolized.
Symbols are important, but they are not sufficient. Nepal’s youth are smart, globally aware, and deeply committed to change. Still, their movement will remain vulnerable to being taken over until it learns to tell apart superficial reforms from real, structural change. The goal is not to celebrate individual personalities but to promote processes that guarantee integrity, fairness, and sovereignty.
If Nepal’s future belongs to Gen Z, it won’t be achieved through symbolic appointments or elite deals. It will come only through persistent efforts for institutional reform and holding generations accountable. Anything less isn’t progress, but an illusion.
Dr. Subedi is a sociology professor at Miami University in Ohio, USA.
Login to add a comment