If the energy seen in the streets can be translated into institutional resilience, independent courts, real anti-corruption capacity, and politics grounded in policy rather than patronage, Nepal could emerge stronger
As Nepal moves towards early elections, it is important to understand how we reached this moment and what the months ahead may bring. The September uprising began with the government's sudden suspension of several social-media platforms. What started as youth-led demonstrations quickly grew into a nationwide anti-corruption and anti-elite revolt. The impact was immediate: Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli resigned, Parliament was dissolved, and President Ram Chandra Poudel appointed former Chief Justice Sushila Karki as interim prime minister. Her mandate is clear, stabilise the country and deliver credible elections on March 5. Whether that vote channels the Gen Z movement into institutional transformation or allows old power structures to reassert dominance will define Nepal's next chapter.Nepal now faces three plausible post-election scenarios.
Restoration and co-optation. In this scenario, the UML, Nepali Congress, and aligned groups regain political dominance by leveraging their long-standing networks, patronage channels, and local party machinery. Some visible changes may occur, a handful of new faces, limited investigations, and partial media reforms, but the underlying power architecture remains largely intact. This is possible because traditional parties retain deep rural reach and organisational discipline.
New political groups claiming to represent Gen Z may struggle to unify, splitting the youth and protest vote in first-past-the-post constituencies. The security establishment's preference for predictability could indirectly reinforce established elites, signalling continuity over disruption.Under this outcome, Nepal is likely to see a mainstream-party coalition promising modest reforms and symbolic prosecutions. Youth-led movements may retain moral influence but lack real governing power. The risks are clear: continued public frustration, periodic unrest, limited rule-of-law improvements, entrenched corruption, and the persistence of patronage politics.
Managed renewal. In this more optimistic scenario, elections produce a diversified parliament with meaningful representation for new civic, reform-oriented, and youth-driven actors. Sustained youth pressure, judicial assertiveness, and global scrutiny push political parties towards genuine institutional reforms. These may include improvements in electoral processes, stronger anti-corruption bodies, and protections for digital freedoms.
Several forces could drive this outcome. The demographic weight of Gen Z – now the most vocal political force – makes ignoring youth demands politically costly. Prime Minister Karki, known for judicial independence, could use the pre-election period to implement guardrails that reduce the chances of democratic backsliding. International stakeholders also prefer institutions that enhance transparency and confidence.
If this scenario unfolds, Nepal may see a coalition of reformed legacy parties and new civic groups. Likely reforms would include stronger digital-rights legislation, a more empowered anti-corruption commission, greater transparency in public procurement, and youth employment programmes supported through public-private collaboration.
The constraints are real: reforms may be slow and hard-fought; economic frustrations may undermine public patience; and finding skilled technocrats who cannot be co-opted may prove difficult.
Fragmentation and controlled backslide. In this scenario, the election results are inconclusive, producing a highly fragmented parliament. Citing the violence and institutional chaos of September, the security establishment asserts greater influence over governance. Nepal maintains formal elections but gradually shifts towards a hybrid system with expanded executive authority, tighter surveillance, and reduced space for protest.
This path is plausible because images of burned state buildings and seized weapons give the security sector strong justification for increased oversight, allowing emergency measures to quietly harden into long-term controls. Some international actors might tacitly accept this arrangement if it prioritizes stability.
Post-election consequences could include reduced youth turnout, weaker parliamentary checks on the executive, and new "information security" laws expanding digital monitoring. Mass protests may decrease, but underground activism, hacktivism, and diaspora-driven pressure may rise. Risks include reputational damage, potential sanctions, declining investment, accelerated brain drain, and simmering resentment that could trigger deeper instability later.
Elements of all three scenarios may unfold simultaneously. The outcome will depend on whether youth movements can transform street energy into organised electoral strategy, whether interim and judicial institutions can introduce safeguards against renewed patronage, and how much uncertainty the security establishment is willing to accept.Youth movement leaders must therefore convert public sentiment into clear policy proposals and candidate slates. They need to conduct voter-education campaigns, especially in semi-urban and rural regions, and maintain disciplined, non-violent communication.
Interim authorities and political parties should use this narrow window to pass focused reforms that strengthen electoral credibility without provoking further polarisation. International partners can assist through independent election monitoring, judicial capacity-building, and support for civil society, tied to measurable governance benchmarks.
The Gen Z uprising is both a generational reckoning and an institutional stress test. The March elections represent a hinge moment for Nepal. If the energy seen in the streets can be translated into institutional resilience, independent courts, real anti-corruption capacity, and politics grounded in policy rather than patronage, Nepal could emerge stronger. Ultimately, the final outcome rests with the people of Nepal, across all generations, regions, and backgrounds. What citizens think, demand, and vote for will determine not just who forms the next government but the path the nation takes from here.
Democracy is not a spectator sport; it requires active participation to shape the future of this and the next generation.
Shah is Chairperson, Lead Nepal Inc.
