By Our Reporter
Since becoming the caretaker Prime Minister, Sushila Karki has struggled with ongoing issues of challenges to forming a complete government. A month under her rule, her government is still incomplete due to demands to install members from the various factions of Gen Z youths. Both factions cite legitimacy and authority in the uprising that brought Karki to power, creating tension and difficulty in making choices.
The absence of ideological cohesion among such factions has hindered policy making in unison, subjecting the administration to the practice of being reactive, and not proactive. Even primary policy suggestions have been opposed from within for violating provisions of the constitution, hence revealing the vulnerability of the administration.
The rivalry between the Gen Z factions extended onto the streets and into political institutions. While a few of the activists, such as some key leaders like Sudhan Gurung, have metamorphosed into public figures, others criticized that the movement was hijacked and the political metamorphosis has been taking a different track from the grass-root levels initiation of the activity: youth participation and good governance. Decisions on cabinet positions, disciplining anarchic elements in the movement, and policy priorities have got delayed or are debated. This internal crisis has not enabled the administration to talk with a single voice to the public or the political class.
The broader political climate in the meantime also reflects these ambiguities. Negotiations between the Prime Minister and mainstream political parties have been fragile, throwing doubts on the March 4 general elections that are on the schedule.
Though the Election Commission has established a timeline and started preparatory work, several parties are still ambivalent about taking part, which reflects suspicion with regard to the interim administration’s jurisdiction. Political players and citizens are thus left to play it out in uncertainty rather, with a risk of undermining the credibility and success of the electoral process.
The battle to impose domination is fueled by the spontaneous and fragmented nature of the Gen Z phenomenon itself. Initially a ubiquitous presence that could shape national politics in the span of a week, its energy is dissipated to rival factions with opposing agendas.
The challenge of translating this strength to organized rule reveals the limitations of a movement that found swift political change without earlier experience in institutions. The failure to translate popular mobilization into coherent policy reflects a wider tension between idealistic activism and the practical demands of statecraft.
Ultimately, Karki’s administration illustrates the difficulties of governing in an environment dominated by fragmented youth activism and unresolved political loyalties. Her own mobilization that brought her to the top still has not channeled its power into a concerted agenda, and the government is plagued with internal conflict, undefined leadership, and stalemated decision-making.
Unless an honest effort is made to consolidate the Gen Z camps, formalize policy priorities, and work constructively with political institutions, the caretaker government is only able to persist in providing instability without fulfilling the reforms that originally created public demand.
Login to add a comment