Nepal Faces Gen Z Divides And AI Fears Ahead Of Election

As Nepal approaches its pivotal parliamentary elections slated for March 5, 2026, the nation finds itself at a crossroads—caught between the energetic, sometimes fractious momentum of its Gen Z activists and the mounting challenges of disinformation in a digital age. The hundred-day mark of the interim government, installed in the wake of the September 2025 Gen Z protests, has only deepened these divides, with youth-led groups split over the government’s legitimacy and the best path forward for the country.

On December 21, 2025, Miraj Dhungana, a prominent Gen Z figure who had previously stayed out of the initial protest wave, announced his intention to launch new demonstrations, demanding the formation of an all-party government. At a press conference in Kathmandu, Dhungana’s alliance accused Prime Minister Sushila Karki’s government of betraying the ideals of the Gen Z movement. “The Gen Z movement of September was not meant to build anyone’s brand or serve as a ladder for leaders. No one should try to rise by stepping on the movement. The current government led by Sushila Karki does not carry the spirit of the movement and does not represent our leadership,” Dhungana declared, as reported by OnlineKhabar. He further argued, “That is why an all-party government must now be formed. What the country needs today is political leadership that can take all sides into confidence and provide an exit for the nation.”

Dhungana’s coalition, which now claims to include 26 groups, is preparing to take to the streets beginning December 22, 2025. Their central grievance? That the government’s focus on early elections—two years ahead of schedule—misinterprets its true mandate, which Dhungana argues is constitutional reform, not a rushed return to the polls. “If the current government thinks it will become an election government, that is an illusion. The purpose of this government is not to hold elections in the current situation,” he insisted. This stance, however, is far from universally shared among Nepal’s Gen Z leadership.

Countering Dhungana’s call for protests, other major youth groups have voiced strong support for holding elections as planned. The Gen Z Front, led by Raksha Bam and Yujan Rajbhandari, maintains that elections are the only viable exit from the present impasse. “We are not in favour of protests. We should not get trapped in the chaos of toppling the government and forming another one in the name of an all-party setup,” Rajbhandari told OnlineKhabar. “This government must now conduct the elections, and we should support that.” The Front has even pledged to back independent candidates emerging from within its ranks, distancing itself from any movements that might disrupt the electoral process.

The Gen Z Movement Alliance, under Monika Niraula, echoed this sentiment. “Whoever is talking about launching protests, we are not involved in that. In the current situation, we are firm that elections must be held,” Niraula stated. She acknowledged the constitutional right to protest but urged that any such actions be weighed carefully against the current context. Niraula also dismissed calls for immediate constitutional amendments as impractical at this juncture.

Adding to the chorus, the Council of Gen Z, represented by Koshi Province coordinator Uparjun Chamling, argued that elections are the “only viable option” for Nepal. “Those who are announcing protests, are they really Gen Z? The public is aware. Everyone has seen who is who,” Chamling remarked, subtly questioning the motives of the protest camp. He warned that without elections, Nepal risks veering toward either authoritarianism or the restoration of a discredited parliament—neither of which, he argued, aligns with the aspirations of the country’s youth. “Today’s youth want neither authoritarian rule nor the restoration of a parliament that hands power back to the same old thuggish gangs. That is why there is no alternative to elections right now.”

But if the political debate over elections is fierce, the information landscape is even more fraught. On the opening day of the CPN-UML’s 11th general convention in Sallaghari, Bhaktapur, party leader Mahesh Basnet posted images online showing massive crowds—a supposed show of strength for his party. Yet, as Republica revealed, at least one of these images had been artificially enhanced with an AI-generated crowd using Google’s Gemini. While Basnet boasted of mobilizing 500,000 supporters, police estimates put the number closer to 70,000. The doctored image quickly spread online, illustrating how Nepal’s election season has become a contest not just of votes, but of what citizens can agree is real.

This episode is just the tip of the iceberg. The rise of AI-generated media has already sparked new controversies. Swarnim Wagle, vice-president of the Rastriya Swatantra Party, recently filed a complaint with Nepal Police’s Cyber Bureau after a deepfake audio clip surfaced, falsely suggesting he had held a conversation with India’s Prime Minister. As Poynter has noted in its fact-checking coverage, such audio deepfakes are particularly insidious in Nepal, where voice notes spread rapidly through family chats and social networks, often without context or verification. Detection tools for manipulated audio are still unreliable, putting ordinary citizens at a disadvantage in discerning fact from fiction.

The government’s response has been uneven. In the wake of the September protests, authorities imposed a sweeping ban on major social media platforms—including Facebook, X, and YouTube—for failing to register with regulators. The ban, however, only fueled further unrest, with Reuters reporting at least 77 deaths and thousands injured amid the ensuing violence. The clampdown was eventually reversed, but the episode highlighted the dangers of blunt-force censorship: misinformation simply migrated to less visible channels, making it even harder to track and counter.

Nepal’s Election Commission, for its part, has tried to keep pace with the evolving threat. Its 2021 “Policy on the use of social media in Electoral Management” and a new draft code of conduct for the upcoming election explicitly ban false or misleading information and prohibit fake accounts intended to influence the vote. Still, experts warn that these rules need urgent updating to address the realities of generative AI. What constitutes synthetic media? How should campaigns label AI-assisted content? Who bears responsibility when manipulated information goes viral?

Recommendations from Poynter and other media watchdogs stress the need for a multi-pronged approach: newsrooms and fact-checkers should treat every viral clip as a potential crime scene, tracing its origin and publishing their verification methods; parties and candidates should pledge not to use deepfakes and clearly label any AI-generated content; platforms should establish rapid-response teams tailored to Nepal’s unique linguistic and political landscape; and citizens themselves should adopt a “ten-second triage”—pausing, checking, and verifying before sharing sensational claims.

In the end, Nepal’s upcoming election will test not just its political institutions, but the resilience of its public sphere. As the Gen Z movement has shown, young Nepalis are more than willing to mobilize when they sense their future is at stake. The challenge now is ensuring that truth, not rumor, sets the pace for the nation’s next chapter.