KATHMANDU: In a week that may go down as one of the most pivotal in Nepal’s recent political history, the nation has transitioned from uncertainty to a fragile hope. The formation of an interim government led by former Chief Justice Sushila Karki, following the eruption of the Gen-Z movement, is not just a stopgap—it is a mirror held up to the failures of the political establishment and a reflection of a society demanding fundamental change.
President Ram Chandra Paudel’s candid admission during Constitution Day—that forming a cabinet from the current House of Representatives is no longer possible—marks a significant turning point in Nepal’s political discourse. His declaration underscores a crisis of representation, not just a procedural deadlock. For many, it is the official acknowledgement that Nepal’s existing parliamentary framework has lost its legitimacy in the eyes of the public, especially its youth.
The Gen-Z Movement: A Tipping Point
What began as a youth-led protest against corruption and elite misgovernance quickly escalated into a nationwide demand for political accountability. The Gen-Z movement, erupting on September 8–9, saw thousands of young Nepalis take to the streets. They were not mobilized by party cadres or established leaders, but by digital activism, raw frustration, and a deep sense of betrayal.
For years, the youth had watched political infighting stall development, saw meritocracy ignored, and witnessed endemic corruption bleed public institutions dry.
The protest wasn’t just an emotional outburst—it was an ideological rupture. Protesters targeted symbolic institutions, torched vehicles of the security apparatus, and disrupted the machinery of government. In doing so, they sent a message: a generational social contract had been broken. Tragically, these protests also turned violent, leading to ten deaths.
The government’s decision to declare the deceased as martyrs and offer compensation is important, but these gestures must be followed by structural reforms.
Sushila Karki: Symbolic and strategic choice
The appointment of Sushila Karki as interim Prime Minister marks a decisive shift in tone. As Nepal’s first female Chief Justice and a respected anti-corruption crusader, her leadership sends a clear message: the interim administration is about restoration, not ambition. Karki herself affirmed this stance, pledging to conduct elections within six months and return power to elected representatives.
In her first days in office, Karki has shown a preference for substantive governance over performative politics. Her outreach to Dr. Sanduk Ruit, a respected figure in civil society, and her call for civil servants to work with integrity, underscore her focus on institutional revival. Her rejection of traditional political rituals and her open acknowledgment of the crisis reflect a government trying to regain moral legitimacy rather than consolidate political control.
National and international response
The domestic political fallout has been swift. The Nepali Congress, the country’s oldest party, is now openly grappling with internal discontent. General Secretary Gagan Thapa’s bold call for party restructuring—and his readiness to resign—is indicative of a broader recognition among younger politicians that token reforms won’t suffice. Similarly, Sumana Shrestha’s exit from the Rastriya Swatantra Party highlights the growing frustration among reform-minded politicians who feel stifled by party hierarchies.
On the international front, the response has been cautiously optimistic. The United States, India, China, and Pakistan all issued statements welcoming the peaceful transition and expressing support for the interim government. The U.S. Embassy, in particular, commended the army’s role in restoring calm—a subtle nod to concerns about the fragile balance between civilian authority and military influence during periods of crisis.
China, as expected, emphasized sovereignty and stability, while India maintained its traditional emphasis on cultural and historical ties. These diplomatic signals matter—not just in terms of external relations, but as an indication that the international community sees this interim period as a test of Nepal’s democratic resilience.
Justice and accountability
One of the interim government’s first major decisions was to form a judicial commission to investigate the violence and property damage during the Gen-Z protests. This is a necessary step. But the credibility of the commission will depend on three things: its independence, its transparency, and its ability to deliver justice without political interference. The decision to hold national mourning and provide compensation is welcome, but symbolic acts cannot replace structural accountability.
Minister for Home and Law Om Prakash Aryal’s background as a legal reform advocate raises hopes that the investigation may not be a whitewash. However, this will also test whether Nepal’s political culture is ready to accept the rule of law over political expediency.
Reclaiming state institutions
The interim government also signaled an intent to restore the integrity of state institutions. Energy Minister Kulman Ghising, who has a track record of challenging entrenched interests at the Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA), immediately ordered the collection of long-overdue payments from powerful trunkline users. This move, long delayed under previous administrations, reflects an emerging political will to tackle elite privilege.
Such policy decisions—if sustained—could slowly help rebuild public trust in government. But the interim government must walk a fine line: asserting administrative authority while preparing to transfer power within six months.
Road Ahead: Unity or fragmentation?
The most urgent task now is ensuring credible, transparent, and timely elections. But the larger question is this: can the energy of the Gen-Z movement be transformed into long-term political renewal? Youth anger can drive protest, but democratic reform requires organization, negotiation, and participation.
If the political establishment treats this interim period as a pause rather than a pivot, the opportunity will be lost. Already, new political formations are beginning to take shape, including Resham Chaudhary’s break from Nagarik Unmukti Party to form a new political entity. Whether these new groups will deepen democracy or fragment it further remains to be seen.
Conclusion: Between crisis and possibility
Nepal is standing on the edge of a political rebirth—or a return to cynical maneuvering. The interim government, backed by national consensus, has been given a rare opportunity to stabilize the country, deliver justice, and lay the foundation for a more accountable political order. But the clock is ticking.
The next six months will test the country’s institutions, its political leadership, and the maturity of its electorate. Above all, it will test whether Nepal can finally align its democratic aspirations with democratic outcomes.
Comment