Nepal’s Gen Z Movement: Rebels With What Cause?
The Gen Z revolt has rattled Nepal’s institutions, yet its trajectory and place within Left politics remain unclear.
September 8 marked the third day of the Gen Z protest in Nepal. The street violence had subsided, but the situation remained — and still remains — fragile. State-run radio reported that 34 Gen Z protesters had died. The parliament building, the prime minister’s residence, the presidential palace, the Supreme Court, and other key institutions had been set on fire. The prime minister (whose whereabouts remain unknown) and his ministers have resigned. Parliament is not in session. The president is said to be unwilling to step down. The ongoing power tussle among old, new, and emerging political forces threatens to reignite violence. Who are the Gen Z, and what is the context of Nepal’s contending political forces?
Political Background
Nepal experienced a triangular power tussle after 1949, when the autocratic Rana regime was replaced by a previously powerless monarchy under the design of a newly independent India. The first force was the Nepali Congress, nurtured in India and committed to bourgeois democracy under the banner of democratic socialism. The second was the monarchy, which gradually consolidated its strength due to the unpopular actions of the Congress party in government and the relative weakness of the third force, the communist movement. In 1961, the monarchy imposed the autocratic “Panchayat” system, which lasted until 1990, when a People’s Uprising transformed the monarchy into a constitutional one.
In the ensuing political arrangement, the Nepali Congress alternated in government with the newly consolidated Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist), but their policies and rivalries did little to improve the conditions of the country’s poor. Revolutionaries coalesced in the emerging Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), which launched a decade-long armed People’s War against the government. The movement united the demands of landless peasants against feudal exploitation, oppressed castes and ethnic minorities, women facing systemic suppression, and those seeking accountable governance across much of rural Nepal.
By 2005, when the Maoist struggle posed a serious threat to the old order, the family of the then monarch was assassinated within the Royal Palace, and the king’s brother declared himself the new, extra-constitutional monarch. Meanwhile, the Maoists, unable to penetrate garrisoned urban areas as the United States heavily backed the Royal Nepal Army, shifted course and allied with the recently banned governing parties. India mediated the 12-point Delhi Peace Agreement between the Maoists and the mainstream parties to dismantle the autocratic monarchy. This paved the way for a people’s uprising and the eventual abdication of the monarch in 2006.
In the 2008 constituent assembly elections, the Maoists were surprised to emerge as the largest party. Governing within the framework of a bourgeois state, however, proved difficult: the army, judiciary, and bureaucracy frequently obstructed Maoist initiatives. In May 2010, the Maoists mobilized Kathmandu’s streets to assert popular power, but their leaders, wary of reigniting conflict, soon retreated. It quickly became evident that these electorally oriented Maoist leaders were becoming entrenched in the corruption and factionalism of mainstream politics, prompting revolutionaries to break away by 2012–13. Meanwhile, ethnic politics grew increasingly significant in the southern plains.
The ruling political groups, deeply implicated in the exploitation of the poor, became extremely unpopular — especially among younger generations with little lived memory of the People’s War.
Stagnant Opposition and the Gen Z Protests
Over the past decade, political forces opposed to bankrupt mainstream republican politics have coalesced into three trends, none of which has been able to offer a meaningful alternative. First are the overground reformist left/communist groups. Some oppose the constitution yet still participate in parliament; others, including parties such as the Revolutionary Communist Party of Nepal, emerged from the People’s War and remain committed to forceful revolution, rejecting both parliamentarism and the exploitative system, yet still maintain open offices in the capital. These open oppositional communist groups, however, have failed to exert significant influence on the ruling order. Second are the ostensibly underground left groups that speak of waging revolution on behalf of the oppressed but remain weak. Together, the inability of oppositional and communist forces to articulate a coherent programmatic approach has produced a prolonged stagnation of the revolutionary left since at least 2013, if not earlier.
Third, on the far right, royalist supporters of the monarchy had once accepted the republican parliamentary framework, but have now begun advocating its reinstitution, both through parliamentary maneuvering and through street agitations and propaganda, offering a reactionary politics of conservative stability.
In this context, the Gen Z group appears as a loosely organized and heterogeneous formation. Initially, they were thought to be pro-revolution, but factions have since emerged. Some are pro-republic, while others openly demand the restoration of the monarchy. Some are alleged to promote Christianity, others to have ties with pro-monarchy groups, and still others to be linked to the Barbara Foundation in the United States. Most appear to come from the lower-middle classes, as indicated by their attacks on newly wealthy elites, including the burning of their homes. The Gen Z movement does not seem tied to any particular ethnic group, though it remains internally diverse. To date, it has been difficult to identify the movement’s real leadership.
Rumors suggest ongoing debates between supporters of the ousted republican parties and the Gen Z group over questions such as whether parliament still exists, whether the current constitution remains valid, and whether a new interim government should be formed under that constitution. The Gen Z group has appealed to the Army to oversee the transitional phase until an interim government is established, while insisting it does not favor abolishing the constitution. It is rumored that there is a tussle between the Army and the president for the newly developed overlapping roles. Ultimately, however, a former chief justice — the first woman to hold the office, with a history of activism against monarchical autocracy and later of challenging government corruption — was appointed interim prime minister. Lacking a prominent ethnic-based leader aligned with their movement, Gen Z accepted her leadership, as she had supported their protests and opposed the killing of Gen Z youth. Yet many questions remain unresolved.
During the Gen Z protests, leaders of the mainstream republican parties were swept aside, while monarchist supporters gained ground and remained untouched by the protesters. The homes of corrupt republican ex–prime ministers were set on fire, yet none of the Panchayat-era prime ministers were targeted.
Meanwhile, the reformist and openly oppositional left/communist parties remain divided. Some favor a constitutional path to resolving the crisis, while others — including factions of the Maoists who waged the People’s War — call for a fresh start: dismantling the current constitution and drafting a new one. The smaller left groups, which have never held power and seek major change, privately argue that all existing state institutions should be dismantled and replaced by a people-based interim government composed of capable ordinary citizens, tasked with advancing a genuinely pro-people constitution-making process.
Bringing down a government through agitation in Kathmandu is one thing; governing a country as diverse, class-stratified, and politically divided as Nepal is quite another. The central question is whether — and on what terms — a new constitution or government can be formed that avoids the fractious incompetence and self-enrichment that the three major republican parties have displayed for nearly two decades.
Dr. Shambhu Prasad Katel is a researcher who convenes the Alliance for Marxist Movements (Nepal) and leads the Fundamental Rights, People’s Democracy, and Socialist Forum in Nepal. He has taught and researched at universities in both North America and Nepal.