If Nepal wants genuine stability, it must treat March 5 as unalterable and use the remaining time to fix practical problems, not invent excuses
Nepal's shifting political context finally offers a realistic opening for renewal: the realignment now underway, driven by young citizens and emergent forces, is the most serious challenge yet to the country's entrenched gerontocracy. That possibility will evaporate, however, if the same old elites postpone the March 5 elections or once again bend procedure to protect their own survival. To prevent this, young citizens must remain vigilant and mobilise actively to safeguard the forthcoming elections. Their proactive engagement will ensure that the momentum for change continues, energising activists and clarifying their vital role in securing the path to genuine renewal.
The Gen Z protests of 2025 were not a tantrum; they were a verdict on a broken contract between rulers and ruled. Those demonstrations toppled a sitting government and broke the myth that party flags and tired ideological slogans still command automatic loyalty. What followed has been a rapid realignment: emerging parties, new alliances, and youth-led platforms are rushing to occupy the space opened by the streets, while legacy parties scramble to look relevant in a country that has outgrown them.
Nepal is now a country where most citizens are under 35, yet its power circles are still dominated by men who built their careers in a different century and refuse to step aside. This mismatch between demographic reality and leadership has kept the country locked into a cycle of short-lived coalitions, personalised power, and institutional drift. These political dinosaurs are not just old; they are stuck in outdated mindsets. They bury their heads in the sand of twentieth-century slogans and palace-era intrigue, acting as though the world is still defined by factional feuds and anti-foreign rhetoric. In contrast, Gen Z has grown up in an ultra-connected world in which music, fashion, memes, and protest tactics move from continent to continent overnight, leaving parochial games looking small and obsolete.
The message from the streets was not "advise us occasionally"; it was "move aside, or at least move back". A political class that has already presided over war, royal massacre, failed transitions, and revolving-door coalitions has no moral claim to monopolise Nepal's future.
Nowhere is the mental gap between the entrenched, outdated politicians, often described as 'dinosaurs', and Gen Z clearer than in foreign policy. For decades, Nepal's senior politicians entertained the illusion that they could successfully manipulate relations by 'playing' China and India off each other, trying to gain advantage by shifting allegiance depending on feelings toward one neighbour or the other.
The game has delivered little beyond stagnation. It has trapped Nepal in a theatre of posturing where bridges, roads, and infrastructure are announced with fanfare but delivered late, over-budget, or not at all, and in which each major decision is interpreted through the framework of a lens of "how will Delhi or Beijing react?" instead of "what do Nepalis actually need?"
Gen Z is uninterested in re-enacting Cold War-style balancing acts. Their point of reference is global youth: people in Chile, Hong Kong, Sri Lanka, and France who protest for jobs, climate justice, dignity, and clean governance, rather than supporting the pursuits of ageing strongmen. They see India and China as markets, sources of technology, education, and connectivity to be engaged pragmatically, rather than as chess pieces for political jockeying.
Nepal does not need foreign examples to know what happens when elites mistake tactical manoeuvring for strategy; its own recent history is indictment enough. The people rose against the Panchayat order and then for the republic, only to watch familiar faces recycle themselves through new institutions while basic services and livelihood opportunities remained stuck. Each time, the trend repeated: constitutions rewritten, systems renamed, but the same habits of behind-the-scenes negotiations, delayed polls, and opportunistic coalition deals survived. When elections were postponed or manipulated, instability deepened, public confidence diminished, and external actors found it easier to step into Kathmandu's political void. The Gen Z uprising, at its core, was a refusal to participate in this repetitive cycle, which they see as a painful farce.
That is why the elections scheduled for March 5 are not simply a procedural milestone; they are a referendum on whether Nepal has finally learnt from its own mistakes. Any attempt to postpone them, dressed up as concern for "stability" or "preparation", will be seen for what it is: an effort by the old guard to buy time, regroup, and blunt the shock delivered by the protests. Delaying the polls would sap the momentum of youth mobilisation, deepen mistrust in already fragile institutions, and reopen the door to precisely the sort of horse-trading that younger citizens have rejected.
If Nepal wants genuine stability, it must treat March 5 as unalterable and use the remaining time to fix practical problems, not invent excuses. That means securing polling centres, guaranteeing equitable competition, and creating space for new, forward-looking parties and youth-led platforms to compete on ideas rather than patronage. Realignment by itself guarantees nothing; what matters is who rises.
Parties that put young candidates in winnable positions, speak honestly about jobs, education, public services, and climate resilience, and drop the tired theatre of "balancing" India and China in favour of sober, interest-based diplomacy deserve encouragement.
Nepal has already tried almost everything else: monarchs, wartime commanders, palace courtiers, donor pleasing technocrats, and coalition magicians. The only model it has not properly tested is a politics where a confident younger generation sets the agenda and invites the elders to support rather than suffocate that transition.
Gen Z has shown it can topple a government; the next test is whether it can build one. If the March 5 elections proceed on time with genuine space for new forces, Nepal might finally step out of its holding pattern and on the path to a future defined by those who will actually live in it.
Prof C.K. Peela is a geopolitical and security expert on South Asia and Asia Pacific.
