Shazmah Fatima

China, India, and Pakistan will all be keenly monitoring the developments in Nepal. Nepal's location and history of balancing regional powers are the reasons behind this. On September 07, then-Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli of Nepal made fun of young demonstrators organising a large-scale demonstration against nepotism and corruption in the country's capital, Kathmandu, the next day. He claimed that by referring to themselves as "Gen Z," the demonstrators seemed to think they could make any desired demands.

Less than 48 hours later, Oli was no longer the prime minister, and the Gen Z protest movement he had disparaged was debating who should oversee Nepal. That came after at least 19 people were murdered by police shooting at protestors on Monday, 8 September, further escalating tensions. As members of Oli's cabinet resigned and pressure increased on the prime minister, who eventually resigned, demonstrators set fire to the parliament building and the houses of a few high-profile lawmakers.

Following comparable youth-led protests that overthrew administrations in Bangladesh in 2024 and Sri Lanka in 2022, the Himalayan nation has become the latest hotbed of political change due to those dramatic events. Because of its turbulent political past and its heritage of maintaining a balance between relations with China, India, and Pakistan, Nepal's political turmoil has repercussions not only for the 30-million-person country but also for the larger region and the world.

Historical Background

Since 2008, Nepal, which is sandwiched between China and India, has had 14 governments, none of which have served out a full five-year term.

This is a chronology of significant occasions:

·      1951: Before 1951, the Ranas and other kings from different dynasties ruled Nepal under a system in which the prime minister was inherited. In 1951, pro-democracy groups gained power and overthrew the Ranas, establishing a parliamentary democracy.

·   1961–1990: In 1961, King Mahendra outlawed political parties and reinstated the "Panchayat," a centralised administration that cemented his authority. When certain parties started a campaign and held protests to restore multi-party democracy in 1990, people's dissatisfaction with the system peaked. The "People's Movement" campaign forced King Birendra to remove the ban on political parties, ending the "Panchayat" regime.

·      1996: Left-wing Maoists in Nepal launched a bloody attempt to establish a people's republic in place of the country's royal legislative system. That resulted in a civil war that lasted ten years and claimed over 17,000 lives.

·      From 2006 to 2015: After civil unrest in 2006, the monarchy was abolished in 2008, transforming Nepal into a federated democratic republic. The final king, Gyanendra, is a commoner in Kathmandu. Nepal enacted a new constitution in 2015.

·   From 2015 to the present: In October 2015, K.P. Sharma Oli became Nepal's first prime minister, and his administration lasted for around a year. In 2018 and 2021, he was elected for the second and third consecutive terms; in 2024, he was elected for the fourth time.

What triggered the protests?

According to a study by digital advisory firm Kepios, 14.3 million social media user IDs were active in Nepal at the beginning of 2025, demonstrating the country's significant use of social media. That number would represent over half of the nation's population if each user were an individual. However, it has been reported that numerous social networking sites have consistently disregarded requests from the Nepali government to register with the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology. For authorities to monitor "undesirable content," the Nepali Supreme Court required all social media platforms to register before operating on September 29 of last year. The court's decision was made public last month.

On August 28, the ministry sent a public notice to social media companies, allowing them seven days to register to comply with the directive. They would be deactivated in the nation if they didn't. Some businesses registered before the deadline, such as Viber and TikTok messaging apps. (Previously, TikTok was prohibited in the country to preserve "social harmony," but the ban was revoked after the business consented to work with law authorities to combat offences involving the platform.) However, some allegedly disobeyed the directive, so the government blocked 26 social media sites, including Meta's Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, after the deadline had passed.

What is the government's response? According to the Himalayan Times, authorities on Monday enforced curfews in several locations around the nation, including Kathmandu, Pokhara, and Itahari. Additionally, as demonstrators broke into restricted areas and the Parliament grounds, the Nepali Army was called to support security authorities.

The nation's Human Rights Commission advised the administration to handle the protests with moderation. "Every individual's right to peaceful expression of dissent is guaranteed by the Constitution of Nepal and international human rights laws," the commission said in a statement on Monday. "A democratic government must promptly recognise and respond to the valid concerns of its constituents. Violent incidents during protests and the use of disproportionate force by security forces are highly alarming.

Prime Minister Oli's coalition government includes Nepal's largest party, the Nepali Congress, whose general secretary, Gagan Kumar Thapa, said in a statement on Monday that Oli "must take full responsibility" for the "unwanted and violent activities that occurred during the peaceful protest" and that "extreme repression carried out by the government in name of controlling the protest is condemnable and unforgivable." In the meantime, the CPN (Maoist Center), the largest opposition group, also called for Oli's resignation.

Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak resigned Monday night, September 08, accepting accountability for the government's lethal crackdown. In response to the protests, Prime Minister Oli said the government will give the relatives of the dead financial support and free medical care to those hurt.

Prithvi Subba Gurung, Nepal's minister of communication, declared Tuesday morning, 09 September, that the social media sites are "working now" and that the country will lift the ban. However, it appears that the protests will go on. On Tuesday, young people continued to demonstrate in the vicinity of the Parliament building, defying curfews. Gurung's house was even set on fire by others early on Tuesday.

"I do see hope when I look at this high turnout of Gen Z," Taya Chandra Pandey, a teenage demonstrator, told the Kathmandu Post. "Gen Z is the only force behind this; no political party is involved. We have demonstrated our ability to keep this movement going."

Nepali activist Priya Sigdel also told the Post, "We cannot stop now: so many innocent young people died." These elites and their offspring will only perpetuate the same crooked system if we remain silent. We shall die now that the government has demonstrated that we must die for them to pay attention. We won't stop, though. This government should step down, and those in charge must be held accountable.

Escalation between police and protestors. Source: AryaLekh

Implications for Nepal's political system

In 2025, these protests essentially transitioned from street mobilisation to institutional manifestation; this is a unique turning point in the post-monarch Nepal political landscape, which appears to be becoming more unstable. The current prime minister resigned, and parliament was dissolved shortly after widespread demonstrations against the social media ban and long-standing complaints of corruption and nepotism. There were also allegations of violent riots that left hundreds injured and dozens dead.

The protests revealed steep elite de-legitimation, one of three interconnected warnings Nepal's political system needs to face. Traditional parties and political houses that had long dominated Kathmandu are now seen as having lost credibility with urban youths and civil society, threatening their ability to form coalitions and engage in elite bargaining within the regular political process. If parties don't swiftly regain public trust, this delegitimising makes it more likely that episodic, ad hoc interventions outside of parliament will replace routine parliamentary politics.

The separation of powers and precedent are constitutionally challenged by ad hoc institutional arrangements, such as emergency institutional adaptations involving a much deeper involvement of security and a swift elevation of nonpartisan figures (the former chief justice reportedly acts as the interim leader). Despite stabilizing the current crisis, such actions might also lead to ad hoc measures that could be abused by future actors, thereby eroding such democratic principles from a mid-term perspective.

By demanding a probe into these coercive measures, as well as the curfews and mass arrests for live ammunition, this lastly poses a politically dangerous accountability dilemma. While thorough, impartial prosecutions and true independent investigations would be the first step toward regaining legitimacy, partial or politically biased probes into protester deaths or corruption would further polarise the movement and possibly radicalise some segments. The political trajectory will determine whether interim institutions support inclusive political discourse, fair accountability, and credible election schedules.

A Way Forward:

There are three possible outcomes for Nepal, and each one includes policy recommendations for domestic and regional players.

·    Scenario A indicates a regulated transition with a modicum of optimism. Credible, time-bound elections, impartial inquiries into the violence that surrounded the protests, and other anti-corruption reforms are all goals of a negotiated interim agreement. To assist in institutionalising some of their demands, youth actors access established channels such as anti-corruption commissions and youth advisory councils. Reform and inclusiveness help political parties restore their credibility while preventing regional spillovers. Therefore, the scenario assumes impartial institutions for enforcing the rule of law and a believable elite consensus.

·   Scenario B involves long-term instability, most likely due to polarisation. Security cracks down while political fragmentation persists, and core protest demands are only partially addressed. Elite entrenchment and movement exhaustion cause cycles of protest and repression. This is where external parties (the regional powers) start to hedge, and cross-border trade starts to suffer economically. The result is geopolitical friction. When accountability procedures are perceived as selective, this result becomes more likely.

·      Rapid systemic disruption (contingent) is scenario C. Public mobilisations and elite defections make massive political realignment possible; changes are institutionalised, and new parties or civic alliances are formed. This would resemble Sri Lanka's 2022 rapid leadership transition, but it would also necessitate an economic shock or the downfall of the elite. Transformational reform is the positive aspect; governance gaps and temporary instability are the negative aspects.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official stance of The Himalayan Research Institute Pakistan - (THRIP)

_________________________________

Shazmah Fatima is an independent researcher and a final-year International Relations student at Riphah International University, Pakistan. Her research focuses on international relations, global affairs, and governance, with experience in policy research and academic writing.