By P.R. Pradhan
The Generation Z movement in Nepal has emerged with bold and uncompromising demands. Its central agenda includes ending corruption, dismantling the costly and ineffective provincial structures, investigating the property of leaders and bureaucrats who have held power since 1990, suspending politically appointed officials, and introducing a directly elected executive chief of government. The latest demand added in the list was an independent investigation on the excessive use of force in suppressing demonstration claiming the lives of 74 youths and damage of the public and private property. These demands reflect deep frustration with the existing political order and a desire for structural reforms that address decades of failure.
On September 13, 2025, representatives of the movement reached a dramatic agreement with President Ramchandra Paudel. Aligning with the agitators’ position, Paudel agreed to dissolve the House of Representatives (HoR). This decision effectively collapsed the 2015 Constitution, a document already mired in controversy and declining legitimacy. For Gen Z activists, the goal was clear: suspend the constitution and prepare the ground for drafting a new one. Many within the movement even leaned toward restoring the 1990 Constitution, with space for a symbolic monarchy. Yet, domestic power centers and foreign interests quickly mobilized to defend the 2015 framework, which now survives only on “ventilator support.”
Nepal’s constitutional history provides important lessons. In 1990, following a popular uprising, Krishna Prasad Bhattarai became interim prime minister with the responsibility of drafting a new constitution and holding elections. A committee of leaders and legal experts was formed to draft the new charter. Similarly, after the 2006 movement—this time with Maoist participation—an interim constitution was introduced in 2007, leading to elections for a constituent assembly. That process culminated in the promulgation of the 2015 Constitution, though critics argue it was imposed under Western influence rather than through national consensus.
The events of September 13, 2025, were therefore historic but ultimately disappointing. President Paudel, invoking what he termed a “special prerogative” beyond constitutional limits, appointed former Chief Justice Sushila Karki as prime minister despite her being outside parliament. Soon after, the House was dissolved, and elections were announced for March 5, 2026. Yet the decision to preserve the discredited 2015 Constitution represented a fundamental mistake by Gen Z negotiators and their facilitator, Nepal Army Chief General Ashok Raj Sigdel. The movement’s spirit had demanded the resignation of both Prime Minister Oli and President Paudel, alongside scrapping the 2015 charter. By announcing elections under the same flawed system, the essence of the uprising was undermined.
History suggests a better course was available. Just as in 1990, a new committee of constitutional experts could have been formed to draft a fresh charter or revive the 1990 Constitution with necessary reforms. The 2015 Constitution, drafted under the guidance of foreign scholar Yash Ghai and heavily influenced by Western models, has failed to take root in Nepal’s political and social context.
The greatest weakness of the September 13 agreement is its focus on elections rather than addressing the demands of the movement. So far, 74 individuals, including Gen Z activists, have sacrificed their lives, and thousands have been injured. Yet the state has responded by pushing an election agenda that may not even be feasible. Even if held, such elections cannot guarantee that a government formed under the existing constitution will fulfill the movement’s aspirations.
Among Gen Z’s demands, the call for a directly elected prime minister requires careful debate. While attractive as a promise of stability, in Nepal’s sensitive geopolitical location between India and China, such a system could create dangerous imbalances and risk authoritarianism. A directly elected executive could easily wield unchecked power, unlike a parliamentary prime minister accountable to the legislature. This idea, therefore, demands serious national discussion before adoption.
What Nepal urgently needs is a sustainable and affordable political system. A country of Nepal’s size cannot support bloated structures such as the national assembly, the proportional representation system, or seven provincial governments. These should be scrapped. The number of House representatives should be reduced, and local bodies consolidated into no more than 350 units. Such a streamlined system would be more efficient, less expensive, and closer to the aspirations of the people.
In conclusion, the interim government’s plan to hold elections under the 2015 Constitution is misguided. It disregards the sacrifices of Generation Z and risks prolonging instability. What Nepal truly needs is not another election under a failed system, but the courage to draft a new, homegrown constitution rooted in the people’s will. In other words, a reformed version of the 1990 Constitution may well be the most suitable framework for Nepal and the Nepalis.
Login to add a comment