The strengthening of democratic governance depends on the establishment of strong and credible state institutions. Only robust institutions can safeguard democracy; without them, individuals often seek to manipulate circumstances for personal gain. Following the Gen Z protests on September 8 and the subsequent incidents of indiscriminate arson, looting and destruction across the country, debates have intensified over the role of Nepal’s key institutions, including the national army. Questions have arisen about whether institutions entrusted with public safety and the well-being of people responded to the situation appropriately and in line with their mandate. The Gen Z protests on September 8 and the security measures taken, during which some youths lost their lives, form the backdrop of these events. The unrest that followed on September 9 escalated into attacks on state institutions, businesses and private property, including widespread arson and looting. In this context, scrutiny of national security agencies and their priorities is natural. How and why a movement intended to be peaceful turned into an attack on parliament remains unclear. Who infiltrated or incited protesters to provoke such violence? Much attention has focused on the Nepali Army, given its headquarters’ proximity to the Prime Minister’s Office at Singha Durbar and the Supreme Court on Ram Shah Path. These debates and criticisms have not only been acknowledged by the army but embraced as part of its commitment to democratic law and procedure. In a public statement, the army affirmed that it adhered fully to both the letter and spirit of the Constitution, responding to criticism more than one hundred days after the Gen Z protest.
While the army’s commitment to democratic norms by facilitating the formation of a new civilian government is well received, its inaction in responding to the deteriorating situation and saving key democratic institutions such as parliament and the court—especially when the Nepal Police and Armed Police Force (APF) were already unable to contain it—raises several critical questions. The Nepali Army is more than a state institution; it is highly respected and trusted by the public. Globally, it enjoys a strong reputation, particularly for peacekeeping missions under the United Nations. Many argue that Nepal could leverage the army as a form of ‘soft power,’ based on its exemplary performance in global peace operations. Back at home, the army’s role has come under serious public scrutiny over its failure to protect even the institutions it is mandated to safeguard during the Gen Z movement. As unrest spread nationwide during the Gen Z protest, the army refrained from immediate deployment, portraying itself as constitutionally bound. Naturally, questions arise about its role when national assets and government offices are indiscriminately attacked and burnt to ashes. Undeniably, the army assisted in safely relocating then-Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and other ministers, as well as securing President Ram Chandra Paudel, the Supreme Commander-in-Chief. But questions about safeguarding the residence of its own Supreme Commander-in-Chief persist. Concerns about potential political motives also emerged in the aftermath of the Gen Z protest. Observing situations like Pakistan, where military interference has caused instability, it is prudent for the army to refrain from direct political involvement—something the Nepali Army has clarified time and again.
The Gen Z protest and the subsequent loss worth over Rs 85 billion as a result of arson and vandalism highlight that government preparedness to secure key institutions was insufficient during the protests. Security agencies are tasked with protecting both citizens and vital state structures. In such situations, strategic planning and preventive measures are essential. Democratic governments rely on security agencies not only to exercise force but also to maintain order and protect institutions. Nepal must draw lessons from Sri Lanka and Bangladesh about the dangers of inaction. Globally, if governments collapse due to such failures, democratic processes lose meaning. While the army cannot automatically intervene in internal security matters, it cannot remain passive when violence, arson or loss of life occurs. Its presence is crucial to safeguarding national assets while remaining non-partisan. The army has emphasized that its coordination and facilitation during crises reflect its commitment to democratic norms. Its efforts to foster dialogue among stakeholders have been widely appreciated. However, if questions are raised from various quarters about the army’s commitment to democracy, it is appropriate for the institution itself to engage in soul-searching. Similarly, if anyone has tried to use the Army for political purposes or to politicize the institution, that must also be examined. Decisions about the type of political system or governance process should rest with the citizens, who exercise this right through democratic practices. Institutions must play their role in safeguarding their integrity. Only when all institutions and their responsible officials maintain credibility can the country function effectively as a whole.