A Democratic Crossroads

Nepal’s political landscape is in turmoil. Following protests that claimed 74 lives, the elected government has been toppled, Parliament dissolved, and former jurist Sushila Karki appointed to lead an interim administration until elections in 2026. While the move may have been intended to stabilise the country amid chaos, it flagrantly breaches the 2015 Constitution, which allows dissolution only when all options to form a government have failed. Such a departure from constitutional procedure risks undermining the very democratic framework that Nepal fought decades to build.

The anger fuelling the protests was not unfounded. Young citizens, frustrated with persistent corruption, poor governance, and suppression of dissent — exemplified by the previous government’s banning of 23 social media platforms — voiced legitimate concerns. However, the tactics adopted by many demonstrators were reckless and counterproductive. The torching of Parliament and the Supreme Court, along with the destruction of crucial records, constitutes a direct assault on institutions designed to uphold Nepal’s hard-won constitutional order. These bodies were created after the decade-long civil war ended in 2006, dismantling an outdated monarchy and incorporating historically marginalised communities into governance. Destroying these institutions threatens to unravel years of painstaking progress.

The interim government faces an urgent dual responsibility: restore law and order by holding perpetrators accountable and safeguard the integrity of democratic institutions. Impunity would send a dangerous signal that violence can replace dialogue, weakening the foundations of the republic. Meanwhile, the reliance of protesters on online platforms like Discord for planning and coordination highlights the movement’s unrepresentative and often chaotic nature. Decisions made in anonymous, unregulated forums cannot substitute for legitimate political engagement, and giving in to such demands indiscriminately could have perilous consequences.

At the same time, the entrenched political establishment — including leaders such as K.P. Sharma Oli, Sher Bahadur Deuba, and Pushpa Kamal Dahal — cannot be absolved of responsibility. Their repeated failures to address systemic inefficiencies, implement reforms, and engage citizens meaningfully have fuelled widespread disillusionment. A potential positive outcome could be a rejuvenation of mainstream parties, pressured to allow more accountable and dynamic leadership to emerge.

Ultimately, Nepal’s path forward must reinforce constitutionalism, institutional protection, and free and fair elections. Only by addressing both the excesses of protests and the deficiencies of political leadership can the country preserve its democratic promise. The survival of a plural, inclusive, and republican “Naya Nepal” depends on safeguarding the institutions that underpin it, rather than tearing them down in moments of frustration.