A year after the Gen Z movement, Nepal’s political landscape has changed dramatically, but many of the improvements young people demanded have yet to be fully realized. The demonstrations began on September 8 last year, when the government shut down social media services. That decision lit the spark, but the anger had been building for years. Unemployment, corruption, favouritism, political privilege and the perception that the government had little concern for ordinary citizens all contributed to the unrest. What followed exceeded almost everyone’s expectations. On September 8, police opened fire on protesters, killing 20 people. The death toll later rose to 77, while more than 2,000 others were injured. The following day, government offices, Parliament, Singha Durbar and properties linked to political leaders were attacked and set ablaze. KP Sharma Oli’s government collapsed, Parliament was dissolved, and an interim administration led by former Chief Justice Sushila Karki was formed, with elections scheduled for March 5. The Rastriya Swatantra Party went on to secure an almost two-thirds majority. The events marked a major political shift in Nepal. Yet removing a government is far easier than reforming the institutions that keep the state functioning. The caretaker administration responded by declaring 45 people martyrs, while the families of 53 victims received Rs 1.5 million each in compensation. These were positive steps. However, major corruption investigations, institutional reforms, greater accountability, constitutional amendments and electoral reforms have yet to make significant progress.
One year since the uprising, Gen Z’s promises remain unfinished
Corruption may be the most important test of all. Protesters demanded accountability for the September 23 killings and the prosecution of powerful individuals accused of corruption. The interim administration and representatives of the Gen Z movement agreed to establish an independent high-level committee to investigate major corruption cases. Instead, the process has run into legal and political obstacles. The Supreme Court has also halted the work of a property investigation panel that was examining the assets of leading politicians and bureaucrats. That is a significant setback. If the current administration cannot demonstrate that influential individuals will be held to the same standards as everyone else, its promise of good governance risks losing public trust and confidence. The next challenge is employment. Young Nepalis continue to leave the country because working abroad appears to offer a more secure path to a livelihood. Unemployment remains around 20 percent, and hundreds of thousands leave Nepal each year in search of jobs. The government has spoken about startups, software, the digital economy and private investment. These ideas have potential, but young people will ultimately judge them by tangible outcomes: jobs, income and reasons to stay. Businesses, meanwhile, need something more fundamental—stability. Frequent policy changes and stricter regulations have eroded investor confidence in the current administration.
At the same time, the protests of a year ago have brought one noticeable change: younger politicians now wield greater influence in the new political setup. Established parties face growing pressure to hand over leadership to the next generation. Citizens, too, are asking tougher questions about how politicians govern and how public funds are spent. Yet the central issue remains. Political change has come swiftly, but institutional transformation has lagged behind. Even with a large parliamentary majority and a legislature filled with younger representatives, the desired transformation cannot be achieved overnight. Nor can the existing political hierarchy be dismantled easily. Bureaucratic practices, outdated laws and weak institutions take far longer to reform than governments do. A year later, the real question is not whether the Gen Z movement changed Nepal’s politics. It is whether that political shock will produce lasting reforms. Last year’s uprising brought new faces to power. The government must now demonstrate that it can change not only who holds power, but also how power is exercised in the public interest. If corruption continues unchecked, employment remains out of reach, and institutions fail to respond to citizens’ aspirations, the movement will be remembered not as a turning point in Nepal’s development, but as a revolt that changed the political landscape without delivering the deeper transformation people demanded and that drew them to the streets in the first place.
