Time to choose dialogue over disruptive protests

The government has appealed to the public and political groups to refrain from rallies and protests, suggesting instead that they should engage in dialogue with it. This call has come at a tense time. With Durga Prasai’s faction and other groups planning demonstrations right after the festival period, the Home Ministry's warning has indeed raised concerns that the country might once again witness severe unrest, especially with general elections just around the corner. The ministry's appeal is an expression of growing concern that demonstrations organized through social media may be hijacked by disruptive forces to inflict chaos like the country witnessed during the Gen Z uprising. That movement, which started as a simple protest call by the young people for reform, turned tragic when more than 70 lives were lost, including 22 young demonstrators, and property was largely vandalized amid chaos after police used excessive force to quell the protest. The wounds of that turmoil still linger, both in the minds of the population and in the security forces of the state. Home Minister Om Prakash Aryal's message that the nation requires dialogue, not disruptive protests holds true. His message following a top-level meeting with security commanders is a timely move that leaves room for negotiation while preparing to avoid chaos in the streets.

At the heart of the contention is Durga Prasai, a pro-monarchy campaigner and critic of the caretaker government. After the government became incapable of moving forward with the Gen Z agenda, the number of those showing unhappiness with the government has increased. However, Prasai’s threat to blockade highways and surround Kathmandu with tens of thousands of his supporters cannot be justified at a time when the nation is heading into an election. The government, however, seems bent on allowing the next March 5, 2026, parliamentary election to proceed without mishap. The Home Ministry has stated that it is occupied with law drafting, logistical preparation, and coordination with the Election Commission. Large-scale street mobilization at this time would raise concerns over the legitimacy and credibility of that electoral exercise. Protest is the right of a democracy, but it needs to be held at the right time and in the right situation. When a country is attempting to stabilize itself after September’s destructive turmoil, agitations can only disrupt the political process the nation is attempting to embrace.

Protest leaders must ask themselves if confrontation will bring change or only increase uncertainty. Dialogue, though often slower and less dramatic, remains the only sustainable path forward. If groups like Prasai’s have legitimate concerns about the government’s legitimacy or election process, they should put those issues on the negotiation table. The Home Ministry has already said it is open to talks. Rejecting dialogue outright would mean rejecting peaceful democratic channels altogether. The government, in the meantime, must move ahead and address grudges, rather than waiting for protests and demonstrations to take place. Listening and addressing demands and grudges of political activists, Gen Z youths, and civic activists would restore some level of trust. Meanwhile, the government must be aware that stability cannot be established by mobilizing security forces. For winning the trust of agitating groups, it must listen to their demands and urges. Finally, with the clock ticking for elections, the state and all those willing to hit the streets have a common responsibility. They should ensure peace, uphold public order, and allow the election to take place because it will determine the destiny of our nation.