CIVICUS discussed Nepal’s upcoming elections with youth activist Anusha Khanal of the Gen Z Movement Alliance, a youth-led civil society coalition calling for democratic accountability and governance reform in Nepal.
Nepal will hold elections on March 5, following the resignation of Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli in response to mass protests led by Gen Z. About 19 million people – including 837,000 new voters – will choose among 120 registered parties. Unemployment and governance failures have eclipsed traditional ideological debates, with demands for anti-corruption and inclusion dominating the campaign.
What triggered the Gen Z protests and how did the state respond?
The immediate trigger was that the government revealed its authoritarian tendencies by banning 26 popular social media platforms. This occurred during the ‘Napokids’ trend, in which people exposed the wealth of politicians’ families, in contrast to broader economic desperation. Inflation was very high and youth unemployment was about 23 percent, and there were no avenues for change in the existing political structures. But it wasn’t just about jobs. The youth demanded accountability for decades of corruption, poor governance, service delivery failures and a political system completely disconnected from our realities. The leaders of the three parties roamed around in power for years without doing anything meaningful. We rallied because we had nothing to lose.
The reaction was brutal. On the first day of the protests, the police killed several youths. The government refused to show any responsibility, instead trying to portray the movement as violent and deny it any legitimacy. Instead of listening to the anger of the youth, it declared it a crime. The choice to emphasize property damage over deaths when some buildings were burnt and vandalized tells us everything about where their priorities lie. The government showed that it does not care about the youth.
But repression did not stop the movement; This made it faster. Thousands more youth united and eventually the pressure became impossible to ignore. Oli’s resignation was a forced concession. But it highlighted an important point: the political system only moves forward when directly threatened. This is a lesson we are taking into these elections.
How did civil society organizations join this movement?
Young people created the movement, not civil society organizations. Once it started, we got a lot of support from the broader civil society. It became a mass movement, in which people of all ages participated personally and mentally. Many civil society groups made a conscious choice to support it, documenting what was happening, sharing knowledge, helping shape narratives, amplifying demands and helping to apply pressure to turn grassroots anger into political demands. We pushed for accountability, investigation of killings, protection for protesters, and systemic reforms around corruption and governance. We stressed that any negotiations should include youth as stakeholders in decision making.
A major victory was the 10-point agreement with the interim government that included commitments to address corruption, improve governance, ensure youth participation in decision-making, and move toward a more inclusive democracy. We also pushed for the establishment of the Gen Z Council, a body created to hold the government accountable, monitor the implementation of reforms and bridge the gap between the state and young people.
But we have been realistic about what civil society can and cannot do. We can organize, advocate, document, and monitor. We cannot force a government to implement reforms if the bureaucracy resists or if political will collapses after elections. That is why we are now focusing on keeping up the pressure and creating a system that will make it difficult for future governments to ignore the demands of the youth.
How have the election candidates addressed the demands of the movement?
Anti-corruption and good governance have become prominent themes in party manifestos. All parties are talking about digital governance, e-governance, cashless and paperless. Some are promising to set up a commission to investigate past corruption or audit the assets of public officials dating back decades. Others focus on timecard systems for service delivery, budget transparency and digitization of transactions. It’s just that corruption is so obvious that ignoring it would be political suicide.
The problem is that most parties are unclear on implementation. They describe the what but not the how. There are ideological differences too, but most parties are talking about systemic reforms and public-private partnerships.
Across the board, parties are responding to the movement’s anti-corruption demands because they have to. The question is whether these commitments are genuine or just election rhetoric.
Why is the representation of women and excluded groups still so low among candidates?
Campaign financing is a big problem. The government sets expenditure limits, but everyone knows that this does not happen on the ground. To run a serious campaign with broad reach, you need sponsorship from wealthy supporters or business interests. If you’re a minimum wage woman, you can’t compete with candidates financed by millionaires. There is no public funding system, no state support for candidates from marginalized backgrounds. Even before we get to party selection processes, the economic system excludes most women and poor people.
Security is another important issue that is not given enough attention. Digital violence against women running for office is rampant. Women and lesbian candidates face abuse, harassment and threats online and offline. When we encourage female and gay colleagues to run, the response is often hesitation, both because of a lack of support and because we have not created enough safe spaces for them to participate in politics. Although the Constitution guarantees 33 percent representation to women, the ground reality is completely different.
Then there is the distribution of candidacy slots within parties, which is opaque and controlled by party leaders. Despite public pressure, many parties failed to meet the women’s quota in direct candidature. Some did better in proportional representation slots, but even there, they chose women who are mostly well-connected and wealthy. The movement emphasized inclusion, but we have regressed when it comes to candidate selection.
What obstacles stand in the way of improvement?
The first challenge is that we are almost certainly heading towards a coalition government, which means compromise on every issue. When multiple parties have to negotiate and share power, reform agendas are weakened. The parties will prioritize keeping their coalition together rather than pursuing the anti-corruption and governance reforms they have promised. We have seen this pattern before. It is not yet clear what kind of alliance will result and what compromises will be made.
The second challenge is bureaucracy. Nepal’s bureaucracy can be extremely resistant to change, transparency and accountability. A reform may pass in Parliament and still fail in implementation because mid-level bureaucrats refuse to change the way they work. Even though the law to establish the Gen Z Council has been passed, it has not been formed yet. We can identify problems, document failures, and advocate loudly, but we cannot force the government to take action. If the bureaucracy decides to drag its feet, we have limited leverage. Structural incentives support the status quo, and that’s before we consider whether individual politicians will prioritize reforms over personal interests or patronage networks.
But we are not giving up. The role of civil society is now to maintain sustained pressure, document what is implemented and what is not, and draw attention when governments fail to deliver on their promises. The Gen Z Council gives us a formal mechanism to do this, and we can also make our voices heard independently of it. We need to build broad coalitions, put the movement’s demands in the public debate and make clear that if any government fails to get the job done, there will be consequences. Real change is slow and difficult – but it is possible if civil society remains organized and vigilant and does not compromise on core demands.
CIVICUS interviews a wide range of civil society activists, experts and leaders to gather diverse perspectives on civil society action and current issues for publication on its CIVICUS Lens platform. The views expressed in the interviews are those of the interviewees and do not necessarily reflect the views of Civicus. Publication does not imply endorsement of the interviewees or the organizations they represent.
keep in touch
Instagram
Anusha Khanal/LinkedIn
See also
Nepal’s Gen Z rebellion: time for youth-led change Civicus Lens 10.October.2025
‘The government was corrupt and was willing to kill its own people to remain in power’ Civicus Lens | Interview with Dikpal Khatri Chhetri 02.October.2025
‘The Social Networks Bill is part of a broader strategy to strengthen controls over digital communications’ Civicus Lens | Interview with Deeksha Khadgi 28.February.2025
© Inter Press Service (20260323092810) – All rights reserved. Original source: Inter Press Service
