In the aftermath of Nepal’s dramatic Gen Z uprising last month, the country finds itself at a crossroads, grappling with the fallout of unprecedented youth-led protests, a fragile interim government, and a growing debate over the very structure of its democracy. The events of September 8 and 9, 2025, which saw 75 people killed in clashes between police and demonstrators, have left deep scars on the nation’s psyche. Now, as the interim administration led by Sushila Karki assumes power, all eyes are on Nepal’s political parties, the upcoming March 2026 elections, and the possibility of fundamental constitutional change.
The Gen Z revolt, sparked by frustration with decades of political instability and perceived failures of the old guard, culminated in the overthrow of Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli’s government. According to Al Jazeera and other sources, the protests were marked by violence and chaos: more than 6,000 prisoners escaped from jail, and over 1,000 police weapons remain unaccounted for, creating a climate of fear and uncertainty as the country looks ahead to fresh elections.
Into this volatile landscape stepped Sushila Karki, a former chief justice, who was sworn in as interim prime minister on September 12, 2025. Karki’s mandate is clear but daunting: investigate the deaths and violence of early September and, crucially, organize nationwide elections scheduled for March 5, 2026. In her Constitution Day address on September 19, Karki reaffirmed her commitment to the election date, but acknowledged the immense challenge of restoring public trust in the democratic process and, perhaps more urgently, in the political parties themselves.
Yet, as The Wire reports, Nepal’s political parties are divided and, in many cases, paralyzed. The Nepali Congress, the country’s oldest and formerly largest party, is embroiled in internal debate. On October 12, its central working committee is set to decide whether to challenge the dissolution of the House of Representatives in court, demand its reinstatement, or contest the upcoming polls. Bal Bahadur KC, a party leader and lawmaker, summed up the uncertainty: “It will decide whether to move court against the dissolution of the House of Representatives or start a protest for reinstating the HoR or to take part in the elections.”
Other major parties are similarly conflicted. The Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist–Leninist), which held the second-largest share of seats before the lower house was dissolved, has expressed skepticism about the interim government’s intentions. Mahesh Bartoula, the party’s chief whip in the now-defunct parliament, accused the new administration of lacking seriousness about free and fair elections, pointing to the government’s formation by replacing an elected authority and its controversial handling of the post-uprising investigations. “The government did not seem serious about holding elections,” Bartoula told The Wire, citing the continued presence of influential activists like Sudan Gurung, leader of the Gen Z movement, and the unresolved status of looted weapons and escaped prisoners as major obstacles to a credible vote.
Meanwhile, the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist Centre, led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal, has taken a more proactive stance. Dahal not only called for his party to prepare for the March elections but also stepped down as chairman and initiated a special general convention to elect new leadership before year’s end. This move, according to The Wire, reflects a recognition that the party must adapt or risk irrelevance in a rapidly changing political landscape.
Other parties are in disarray. The Rastriya Swatantra Party’s leader, Rabi Lamichhane, was briefly freed by supporters during the September 9 jailbreak, only to return to prison amid pressure from both the military and his own party. Senior leaders have resigned or fallen silent, leaving the party rudderless. The pro-monarchy Rastriya Prajatantra Party seems to be biding its time, hoping the interim government’s efforts will fail, while the Madhesi parties of the Terai region remain divided, their potential gains in the new elections uncertain.
Amid this political tumult, the debate over Nepal’s constitutional future has come to the fore. The Gen Z movement, reflecting the aspirations of a new generation, has revived calls for a directly elected executive head of government—a sharp departure from the parliamentary system that has defined Nepal since the monarchy’s abolition in 2008. As The Kathmandu Post notes, the current system has produced 14 governments in 17 years, none completing a full term, fueling widespread frustration and calls for change.
At the center of this debate stands Balen Shah, the energetic 35-year-old mayor of Kathmandu. Shah, seen by supporters as the embodiment of the clean, ambitious leadership Nepal needs, declined the interim premiership offered by the Gen Z protesters, signaling his desire instead to lead a full-term government as a directly elected executive. Proponents argue that a directly elected prime minister or president would bring much-needed stability and accountability, ending the cycle of short-lived coalitions, corruption, and political horse-trading.
Yet, not everyone is convinced. Constitutional experts and a segment of Gen Z leaders warn that further tampering with the charter—already stretched by the doctrine of necessity that allowed Karki’s appointment—could undermine the very foundations of Nepal’s democracy. They argue that only a newly elected parliament, with a clear popular mandate, should consider such a fundamental shift. As The Kathmandu Post points out, the current interim government has explicitly stated that changing the parliamentary system is beyond its remit; any move toward a directly elected executive must wait until after the March elections.
The debate is not merely academic. Nepal’s geopolitical position between India and China adds another layer of complexity. Beijing has long favored a strong, stable government in Kathmandu, while New Delhi is more comfortable with a parliamentary system that offers it greater leverage. Both powers are watching Nepal’s transition closely, wary of any changes that might upset the regional balance or invite greater instability.
For now, the immediate challenge remains clear: ensuring that the March 2026 elections are free, fair, and inclusive. Without the participation of Nepal’s major political parties, the polls risk becoming a hollow exercise, devoid of real democratic substance. As The Wire observed, “Political parties are the central actors and institutional backbone of democracy.” Karki’s government, for all its good intentions, cannot rebuild trust or chart a new course alone.
As Nepal stands on the brink of a pivotal election, the choices made in the coming months will reverberate for years to come. Whether the country opts for continuity or bold reform, one thing is certain: the voices of its youth, echoed in the streets last month, will continue to shape its democratic journey.