One year ago, Nepal witnessed a political upheaval unlike any in its recent history. Thousands of young people took to the streets without party banners or established political leaders. Their anger was directed not only at a particular government but at a political culture they believed had failed them. Corruption, lack of accountability, political patronage, and shrinking opportunities had created deep frustration among a generation increasingly uncertain about its future. The restrictions imposed on social media by the government at the time became the immediate trigger, but the roots of the movement ran much deeper. The Gen Z movement was ultimately about change. Young protesters demanded a state that rewarded merit rather than connections, institutions that served citizens rather than political interests, and a government that was transparent, accountable, and responsive. The movement challenged the old political order and helped pave the way for a new leadership that promised to govern differently. A year later, however, an uncomfortable question remains: has the new government delivered the change it promised? This question is particularly relevant because the current administration came to power on the strength of public frustration with traditional politics. Its legitimacy rests not only on electoral victory but also on its ability to demonstrate that it represents a genuine break from the past traditions. If it continues the same practices that people rejected during the uprising, it risks undermining the very mandate that brought it to power.
The Fall of Nepal’s Gerontocracy and Rise of a New Political Or...
Many of the concerns that fueled the movement remain unresolved. Citizens still seek answers regarding accountability, justice, transparency, and institutional reform. Questions surrounding investigations into the violence of the movement, the actions of security forces, and the destruction that occurred during the unrest remain largely unanswered. Public confidence cannot be restored through silence. A government committed to transparency must be willing to confront difficult questions rather than avoid them. Equally important is the issue of governance. The movement was not simply about changing faces in power; it was about changing the way power is exercised. Yet many citizens still see familiar patterns in public appointments, decision-making, and political patronage. Promises of meritocracy ring hollow when competence is not consistently rewarded. Commitments to good governance lose credibility when institutions remain vulnerable to political influence. The challenge before the government is therefore straightforward but significant. It must prove that it is different. That means strengthening institutions rather than personalities, promoting transparency rather than secrecy, and ensuring accountability regardless of political affiliation. It means creating conditions in which young people believe they can build successful futures in Nepal rather than feeling compelled to seek opportunities elsewhere. It means making public services more effective and citizen-friendly. Most importantly, it means demonstrating through actions—not slogans—that reform is possible.
At the same time, accountability cannot be selective. Violence, vandalism, and attacks on public or private property cannot be justified simply because they occurred during a political movement. Nor can the use of force by the state be exempt from scrutiny. A democratic society requires accountability from both citizens and the government. The rule of law must apply equally to all. History shows that Nepal has often fallen into a familiar cycle: public anger leads to a movement, governments change, new promises are made, expectations rise, and disappointment follows. The Gen Z movement was supposed to break that cycle. Whether it succeeds will depend less on the events of the past year and more on the choices made in the years ahead. The current government led by Balendra Shah still has the opportunity to fulfill the aspirations that inspired the movement. But time alone will not justify its existence. Its relevance will be measured by results. If it merely repeats the mistakes of previous governments—political favoritism, weak accountability, opaque decision-making, and unfulfilled promises—it will become indistinguishable from the system it once criticized. The message of the Gen Z movement was clear: change was not demanded for its own sake, but for better governance, stronger institutions, and greater opportunity. A government born from that movement must now walk the talk. Otherwise, it risks becoming another chapter in Nepal’s long history of missed opportunities.
