Nepal stands at a pivotal moment in its political journey. Recent events have exposed fundamental flaws in how the state maintains order while upholding democratic values. The Gen Z protests revealed more than temporary failures—they exposed systemic weaknesses that threaten both stability and democracy. What began as youth demonstrations quickly escalated into a national crisis that tested every institution, from the executive branch to the security forces. Nepal must do more than manage emergencies; it must fundamentally rethink how it governs during both calm and turbulent times.
The state's response during those tense days revealed serious deficiencies in coordination, leadership, and planning. Political leaders hesitated while security agencies acted without clear direction. The Nepali Army—traditionally the nation’s most respected institution—found itself caught between conflicting expectations. Some argue the Army failed its constitutional duty, while others credit its restraint with preventing violence and protecting the constitutional order. This division highlights a core democratic challenge: how to ensure national security without violating rights, and how to wield state power effectively without undermining democracy itself.
Citizens continue to wait for the stability and competent governance they deserve, yet they see the same pattern repeating—crises emerge, temporary solutions follow, and underlying problems persist. The interim government’s primary task is to create conditions for credible elections, but this responsibility is part of a larger mission: restoring public faith in governance. Organizing elections is essential, but the government must simultaneously address core weaknesses in the security sector, which is responsible for protecting the electoral process. Lasting progress requires focusing on key priorities rather than attempting to fix everything at once. Security—encompassing both internal stability and external sovereignty—stands at the center of these priorities because no other reforms can succeed without a reliable security framework.
NSC to organize national tournament from Nov 1
The recent crisis clearly demonstrated where the system breaks down. The problem does not lie in the absence of institutions but in the neglect of existing ones. The Constitution already provides the proper mechanism for coordinated crisis response through the National Security Council (Nepal). Designed as the state's strategic command, the NSC brings together the Prime Minister, key ministers, and the Army Chief to provide unified guidance during emergencies. Yet successive governments have treated this vital institution as a mere formality. Infrequent meetings, unimplemented decisions, and uncoordinated agencies have created a dangerous vacuum where minor incidents can rapidly escalate into national threats. Faced with economic challenges, foreign pressures, and public disillusionment, the interim government cannot rely on temporary political fixes. The solution lies in building institutional coherence rather than improvising responses. A fully functional NSC can provide this foundation, aligning domestic stability with foreign policy, ensuring civilian control over military power, and introducing transparency into security governance.
Making the NSC an effective instrument of governance requires strengthening its Secretariat. Currently understaffed, underfunded, and overlooked, this office should function as the operational hub that converts strategic decisions into coordinated action across all security agencies. It needs legal authority, technical capacity, and institutional standing to fulfill this role. A competent Secretariat would continuously monitor security developments, synthesize intelligence, provide factual analysis, and offer decision-makers clear options. Most importantly, it would ensure consistent implementation of decisions across agencies—closing the gaps that have repeatedly weakened Nepal’s crisis response. The government can immediately empower the Secretariat and initiate structured security dialogues to foster a common understanding. This mechanism would enable the government to craft a unified narrative and send a strong political signal.
Beyond operational improvements, the NSC Secretariat should evolve into a policy forum that includes experts, civil society representatives, business leaders, and youth voices. Broader participation leads to better policies and builds the public trust essential for effective security governance. This framework grants political leaders both the authority and responsibility to guide the nation decisively during emergencies. Evading responsibility or hiding behind procedural technicalities only deepens public cynicism and weakens institutions. Furthermore, ministers overseeing security should regularly appear before Parliament to explain the NSC’s work. Such transparency strengthens accountability and demonstrates that security decisions follow legal processes rather than personal or political interests. Symbolic actions matter too—every public statement, official gesture, and security deployment must reflect civilian control, equal citizenship, and national dignity.
Looking ahead, Nepal needs a deliberate strategy to rebuild trust and stability. The NSC must be activated immediately when tensions arise, not treated as a last resort when crises worsen. Its Secretariat requires legal empowerment, professional staffing, and enhanced analytical capacity. The chain of command across all security agencies must be clarified, parliamentary oversight institutionalized, and public communication maintained consistently. Equally crucial, security discussions must include youth and independent experts to restore legitimacy and confidence.
The Gen Z protests revealed an uncomfortable truth: Nepal’s core problem is not the absence of laws or institutions but inadequate coordination and implementation. The NSC and its Secretariat already exist within the constitutional framework. They represent the mechanism through which political leadership, military professionalism, and public confidence can unite. True leadership is measured not by power accumulated but by power exercised wisely within legal boundaries. Our institutions must function with clarity and purpose. Citizens deserve the assurance that their safety and rights are protected not through arbitrary force or neglect, but through fair, predictable, and effective governance. Nepal now stands at a decisive crossroads: either we build a system that balances strength with freedom—or we risk losing both.
(The author is a self-practising social analyst. Through her independent study of Nepali governance, she offers a unique perspective on youth-led civic engagement, advocating for dialogue and integrity.)
