Region 
 

Kathmandu

From Crisis to Catastrophe

With the current political system in Nepal, the new government is likely to be a coalition government, and another era of political instability is expected to continue

By Dr. Pushpa R. Joshi | December 2025

On September 12, Sushila Karki created history by becoming the first woman to serve as the administrative head of Nepal. In her capacity as interim Prime Minister, she is tasked with overseeing the transition to fresh elections scheduled for March 5, 2026, and responding to demands raised during the Gen-Z protests, including the investigation of state-sponsored corruption and atrocities committed by political parties and their leadership in the past. Remarkably, this is not Karki’s first groundbreaking achievement—she had previously served as Nepal’s first female Chief Justice from 2016 to 2017.

In the first few days following the emergence of the Gen-Z movement, Nepal was in a state of utter shock. The main administrative centers, along with selected private and public properties, were set ablaze, forcing political leaders to go underground. However, the country is gradually returning to normalcy, and the political parties have resumed their regular business. Deposed Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, who had to be airlifted from his official residence on September 9, is spitting fire against the current government. He has threatened to boycott the scheduled elections. Multiple writ petitions challenging the government’s legality have already been filed in the Supreme Court. The discussions on these petitions are ongoing in the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court.

The current government was formed under the banner of good governance. However, an important ethical question about the credibility of the government is being raised as the alleged past and ongoing illicit activities of certain ministers are now being exposed. Furthermore, youth migration is at its peak, and the country has been downgraded to a grey list by the Financial Action Task Force in terms of its economic status. Amid these adversities, the interim government should have coordinated with established political forces to take a mutual step forward in addressing these issues. Instead, the government had hinted at a confrontation with the leading political parties, including the Nepali Congress and the Nepal Communist Party-UML. In addition to that, the government has yet to officially initiate the pre-election proceedings, despite the election being only three months away.

With these developments following the Gen-Z movement, the country now finds itself in a political deadlock. While the future of Nepal remains uncertain, there is little indication that significant positive change is on the horizon. In fact, Nepal has long suffered from political instability, which has been a fundamental driver of its governance failures. Ever since the autocratic Rana regime ended in 1950, Nepal has not seen a single prime minister serve out an entire term. For instance, since the restoration of multi-party democracy in 1990, Nepal has experienced 28 prime ministerial changes in 35 years, with some individuals repeating as Prime Minister multiple times.

If everything goes as planned, the interim government will hand over governance responsibility to the newly elected Prime Minister following the March 5 elections. With more than 150 political parties contesting the elections, the formation of a single-party government is unlikely. Hence, a coalition government of multiple political parties is inevitable. With Nepal’s power-grabbing political culture, the permutations of the coalition will change frequently, thereby enthroning a new prime minister in shorter periods, which has been the case ever since, and the cycle of instability will continue.


With security concerns and weather adversities in hilly districts, holding elections on March 5 poses a significant challenge. Hence, the government might seek a tenure extension for a few more months. This will undoubtedly raise a critical legal issue that has thus far gone largely unaddressed. Article 93(1) of the Constitution clearly stipulates that no more than six months may elapse between two consecutive sessions of the House of Representatives (HoR). There is no explanation as to whether ‘two consecutive sessions’ refers to two consecutive sessions within a particular parliamentary term or two consecutive sessions at any point in time. However, the global parliamentary practice explicitly reflects that there should be no period longer than six months without a session of the HoR at any point in time. This implies that the new session of the HoR should be summoned mandatorily within six months of the previous session’s termination, that is, by March 11, 2026. Otherwise, it will add to the tally of extra-constitutional affairs in the country.

Since the restoration of multi-party democracy in 1990, Nepal has experienced 28 prime ministerial changes in 35 years, with some individuals repeating as prime minister multiple times

Another possibility is that the Supreme Court’s constitutional bench may issue a verdict declaring that the government was formed on unconstitutional grounds. This will automatically reinstate the dissolved HoR, and the new government will be formed from within the Parliament. However, the so-called Gen-Z and their supporters may refuse to accept this development, which might lead to severe violent political confrontations.

On the other hand, Gen Z is not an organized political group, but rather a global age group. The Gen-Z movement was an uncoordinated and spontaneous protest that external non-Gen-Z intruders instigated. The so-called Gen-Z group has also been fragmented into smaller factions vouching for political benefits. Hence, there is a possibility that Gen-Z groups might not disobey the court’s verdict, and politics will take its usual course. The government formed by Parliament will assume the responsibility for early or general elections. With the current political system, the new government is likely to be a coalition government. Hence, the prime ministerial musical chair will continue, and the new innings of political instability will continue.

There are also discussions regarding transforming the current parliamentary system to one with a directly elected executive head. However, this seems a distant reality at the moment. Firstly, this transformation is not possible under the provisions of the current Constitution. Secondly, a large section of the population is unaware of what precisely a directly elected executive head is and how the electoral process functions. With these uncertainties, there is a possibility that the wrong person will be elected – a detrimental move for the country. Thirdly, Nepal has experimented with various political systems in modern times, including dynastic prime ministerial rule, hereditary monarchy, autocratic non-party systems, and multi-party democracy with and without a ceremonial monarchy.

Global experience demonstrates that the type of political system does not solely determine development, but rather the discipline, vision, and commitment of political leaders and citizens. With an extremely politicized Nepalese society, the directly elected executive head may ultimately metamorphose into a callous autocrat. Hence, what Nepal requires is not a change in the political system but to elevate the political and civic conscience of the people.

In a nutshell, the violent Gen-Z movement has brought Nepal to a critical crossroads. However, Gen-Z is just an impulsive medium; the governments and established political parties have often prioritized their own interests over the broader development needs of the country. Hence, Nepal has been sliding into a tunnel of deep uncertainty for a long time. Alas, unless all political stakeholders and the citizens act responsibly and cooperatively, it could take decades before any light appears at the end of this dark tunnel. Definitely, a steep way ahead for Nepal.

Read More