Why can't I say I won't vote for anyone?

 

American writer Franklin Adams said, "Whoever wins an election wins not because he voted for him, but because he voted against someone else."

Voting is said to be the best form of donation, but in the absence of good people to donate to, voters vote against the wrong ones, resulting in someone winning. However, those who win proudly say - I won. The situation of saying 'I won' will only come when voters are given the right to reject the candidates standing in the election.

The House of Representatives election to be held on the upcoming 5th March, will be recorded as an election where you can't say you won't vote for anyone. This article will discuss the right to say you won't vote for anyone in the election.

Voting is the process of people who are eligible to run for office and indicating their vote that they will not vote for anyone or that they will vote for so-and-so among those who have registered. The result of voting is victory or defeat. This democratic process of elections has been adopted by countries that adopt modern democracies. When there is no option to indicate that one will not vote for anyone, it leads to a situation where one boycotts, disrupts the election process, or questions the legitimacy of the election through a low turnout process.

Despite the Supreme Court order, in the context of Nepal, there is no option to say that one will not vote for anyone. This means that the right to refuse is not guaranteed. Whether one likes it or not, one is compelled to vote for one or the other of the candidates standing. If one does not accept this compulsion, there is another compulsion to adopt the path of active boycott that disrupts the election process. Due to this compulsion to become a member of a class organization, the Congress Communists did not participate in the elections during the Panchayat period, while even after the multi-party system, some 'revolutionary communists' adopted the policy of boycotting the elections because the rights of the people were not protected through elections.

After the Mahakali Treaty, which is considered one of the unequal treaties, the Nepali people widely understood that elections were not a means of exercising democratic rights but a license to sell the country. For this reason, election slogans were also made saying that my one vote and your one vote should not become a license to sell the country. Despite all this, the practice of the None of the Above (NOTA) system could not be implemented.

Despite the Supreme Court's order issued several years ago regarding the NOTA system in Nepal, it could not be implemented in practice. In fact, the right to vote in elections is not only a right, but also the right to reject a candidate or party through voting. On this basis, the belief has developed that one should be able to express through the ballot paper that the parties or candidates who have entered the electoral fray or that one should not vote for any of the candidates.

This system, which is prevalent in many countries of the world, has been issued a mandate in the name of the government to make similar arrangements in our country. The Supreme Court has deemed it necessary to guarantee the use of more democracy through elections and to make arrangements to allow candidates standing in the elections to say that they will not vote for any of them. What arrangements can be made for this? It is necessary to discuss how to make arrangements for groups outside the mainstream of the state to express their disagreement by participating in the elections by boycotting the elections, but this issue has not been given priority at the political level.

International Practice on the ‘Right to Reject’

In the 1990 elections of the then Soviet Union, which led to the dissolution of the Russian Federation, the Communist Party led by Boris Yeltsin had to suffer defeat in this election due to this provision. This situation arose because people voted for the option of not voting for any of the above on the ballot paper. This practice has been abolished in the Russian Federation, which was formed after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, since 2006. In Ukraine, a country currently in the throes of war, there is a system in place on the ballot that allows voters to vote against everyone.

Greece has a system of compulsory voting. Since voting is mandatory, the option to leave the ballot blank, cancel the ballot, or vote for no one is available.

Across the United States, there is a campaign to vote with the option of "no to no one" in various states, and this type of ballot is being used effectively in states such as California and Nevada. It has been used in the US state of Nevada. Bangladesh brought this system into discussion in 2008.

Bulgaria used it in the 2016 presidential election. If this type of system, which says "no to everyone" or "no to no one" above, gains a majority, there is a risk that the validity of the election will be terminated. In this case, since the public's trust is expressed through votes, political parties and candidates are forced to maintain the public's trust at all times. It is believed that this helps strengthen democracy.

In neighboring India, the Supreme Court in 2013 issued a directive order. In the writ petition, the court ordered that no one should be allowed to vote. The Election Commission of India also placed a cross mark on the electronic voting machine used by it. This has been used because the Indian government and the Election Commission suggested the option of voting for none of the above. It does not seem to have had much effect on the overall vote result. However, Indian activists maintain that this type of option protects the right of voters to vote.

On the other hand, Pakistan had started this practice in 2013. Then, due to the fear of being rejected through the election itself, due to the dominance of military rule, the Election Commission of Pakistan rejected this system.

In Bangladesh, among the SAARC countries, this system was proposed to be included in the law by the government since 2008, considering it necessary. Although a law with a provision for the right to reject, i.e. not voting for anyone, was presented in the draft law, that provision was removed through amendments. Currently, this system is not in use in Bangladesh.

In Spain, three types of ballot papers are counted: valid votes, blank votes and invalid votes. Among them, there is a campaign to vote by leaving the ballot paper blank, that is, to make the candidate blank. The process of voting by leaving the ballot paper blank is classified as voting for no one. An example of this was seen in the 2011 elections in Spain, when the campaign to vote for no one was carried out, in Barcelona and its surrounding areas, about two percent of the vote was recorded.

This system is also practiced in Colombia. Because this system of voting by leaving the ballot paper blank is accepted, if the number of blank ballot papers is greater than the votes received by the candidates running in the election, a new vote is held. The previously running candidates are considered rejected and the election is held only among the new candidates.

Chile had a law that required voting. This law was repealed in 2012. Both votes marked in a place where there is no candidate and votes for two or more candidates are counted as invalid votes. However, voting in a place where there is no candidate is considered as a no vote. The candidate who receives the majority of the valid votes is declared the winner. No votes are also counted as invalid votes.

Indonesia has also used the NOTA (None of the Above) ballot. This system does not allow for unopposed elections even if only one candidate is nominated. Even if only one candidate is nominated, he or she is not considered elected unless he or she participates in the voting and obtains a majority. Due to this system, many candidates could not be elected due to this option.

In Britain, which is considered the mother of democracy, a request was made to the Parliamentary Politics and Constitutional Reform Committee (PCRC) of the Parliament for such a legal system, and the committee recommended holding a public consultation on the matter before the next election.

Parties and candidates, including the NOTA party (None of the Above Party or the party that says no one is capable of getting my vote) in Britain, are active in pressuring the implementation of this suggestion.

Although this system has not been formally implemented in Canada, the practice of forming a Zero None of the Above party and participating in the election, similar to that in the UK, is widespread. In the state of Ontario, the Zero None of the Above party is registered with the Election Commission and is used to field candidates in the election.

In Norway, a country considered to be excellent in the Prosperity and Happiness Index, this system has also been adopted by making rules. There is a provision for voters to be present and cast blank ballots. In the 2017 election, it was found that about one percent of such votes were received.

In Brazil, there is a system of compulsory voting. Therefore, it was customary to leave the ballot paper blank and such ballots were also counted. But since such a vote does not make a difference to the election result today or tomorrow, the ballot paper is considered invalid and is not counted.

In Belgium, the option of voiding the ballot paper or leaving the ballot paper blank is used to say that one will not vote for anyone. In the 2010 parliamentary election, the percentage of such votes was 5.8. This number of votes is considered the largest to date.

After the introduction of the electronic voting system in France, the option to vote in a place where there is no candidate was provided, but the option of "I will not vote" was not provided.

In conclusion

The above international practice establishes that the minimum right of the voter to vote or not to vote is a right. It also helps to promote the belief that democracy will be implemented only when this right can be implemented. It can also be said that commitment to democracy will be expressed.

The examples of democratic countries adopting it with priority and undemocratic countries rejecting it also show that the right to reject has become a new standard of democracy. Due to the guarantee of the right to vote or not to vote, in such countries, at least there is no need to listen to issues such as boycotting the vote and loss of property and life during the boycott movement. It has established the belief that one can use one's opinion in a civilized manner. In addition, for the protection and development of democracy, i.e. more people

Interview with Butwal today TV.

https://youtu.be/z5uhBoIR2Q0?si=WrToR_wlcsT8c3S9 

के संसद पुनःस्थापना गरी निर्वाचन रोकिँदै छ ? - डा. खिमलाल देवकोटा, वरिष्...

रवि प्रति अघिल्लो सरकारको ज्यादती, यो सरकारको अति उदारता | खिमलाल देवकोट...

Effectiveness of the Upcoming Parliament after the Gen-Z Movement in Nepal

 Effectiveness of the Upcoming Parliament after the Gen-Z Movement in Nepal

Dr. Khimlal Devkota

Constituent Assembly Member and Senior Advocate

 

Abstract

The Gen-Z movement that broke out all over Nepal in September 2025 is a watershed moment in Nepali politics. Highly powered by youth mobilization, internet mobilization, and an unbreakable combination of grievances of corruption, exclusion, and the sudden shutdown of favorite social media sites, the revolt ousted the governing government, precipitated an interim government, and burning and looting of the central secretariat of government, the Supreme Court, including the parliament building, despite the Gen Z movement's mission. This article examines the probable performance of the forthcoming Parliament of Nepal following these incidents. The article constructs an analytical framework in which parliamentarians are located in four fields: institutional continuity, representativeness and legitimacy, effective law-making capacity, and effective oversight of the government functions with accountability, and deliberation of the people's voices. The piece contends that although the Gen-Z movement generates both immediate demand for change and single-party political opportunity for renewal, the next Parliament's potential will be hampered by (a) institutional disruption and physical destruction of parliament infrastructure, (b) legitimacy gaps among mainstream party elites, (c) frayed mechanisms of effective youth engagement, and (d) lingering powers of extra-parliamentary forces (security services, networks of informal elite). It ends with specific suggestions in line with similar uprising international experiences to enhance parliamentary performance during the transition: expedited post-conflict institutional construction, electoral reform to ensure youth engagement, increased legislative monitoring and post-legislative scrutiny, and a transparent process of accountability for suspected human rights abuses during the movements.

Keywords: Gen-Z Movement, parliamentary effectiveness, Democracy, Constitution and Parliamenterians.

1.     Introduction

The political journey of Nepal, since the 1990s, has been marked by cycles of the hottest political contest and institution building: from the struggle for democratic republicanism, to ten years' Maoist insurgency, to constitution-making to 2015. Gen-Z rebellion is the latest, and perhaps one of the most spectacular, examples in that journey on last September 2025. Spurred by state actions like social-media platform shutdowns and fueled by long-standing complaints of corruption and elite capture, the movement quickly evolved from youth-led online-organized protest to national direct action that included mass protests, arson raids on government offices (including the parliament building), and the fall of the prime minister. The state then appointed an interim government to guide the nation to new elections. These incidents generate short and long-term issues about the institutional capability of Nepal's Parliament to perform its constitutional duties effectively in a post-Gen-Z political situation.

This paper analyzes the potential effectiveness of the next Parliament in the future by: (1) theorizing about parliamentary effectiveness; (2) outlining the particular disruptions and political realignments caused by the Gen-Z movement; (3) analyzing structural and procedural risks and opportunities for the parliament; and (4) proposing institutional and policy solutions to ensure and strengthen Parliament's capacity to legislate, represent, and hold the executive accountable.

1.     Conceptualizing Parliamentary Effectiveness: Theoretical Framework

Parliamentary effectiveness is a complex, multi-dimensional construct. Drawing on comparative legislative studies and the literature on governance, this paper conceptualizes parliamentary effectiveness as a four-dimensional construct:

2.1. Institutional Continuity & Capacity: the capacity of the parliament to sit, do business, form committees, and have a minimum of administrative support. Without maintaining institutional continuity and capacity, no institution can prevail, including parliament.

2.2. Representativeness & Legitimacy: whether Parliament's composition and operation express citizens' political will, particularly that of group interests (here, youth/Gen-Z), and whether the latter enjoys public confidence.

2.3. Law-making & Policy Responsiveness: political and technical ability to bring forward, debate, amend, and enact legislation in response to major public interest issues (anti-corruption, freedom of press, social protection, people's prosperity).

2.4. Accountability & Oversight: parliamentary control, monitoring, and oversight of the executive power, investigatory powers, committees, and post-legislative scrutiny procedures with deliberations of the people's spirits.

This approach enables us to measure both immediate operational issues generated by the unrest (e.g., ruined infrastructure, dissolved HoR) and deeper normative/political issues with mandate, representation, and checks and balances. It also gives the highest priority to those indicators most closely aligned with democratic resilience: fairness and speed of electoral reset, inclusiveness of deliberation, quality of legislative product, and efficacy of oversight. (Carnage, 2025)

2.     The Gen-Z Movement: Facts, Political Fallout, and Immediate Institutional Shock

Contemporary journalism produces a series of undeniable facts about the Gen-Z mobilization: wide-scale youth protests erupted in early September 2025, quickly swept the nation, and became violent across the country. Government buildings; central administrative complex (Singha Durbar), parliament, supreme court, presidential residence, and others; were burned and reduced to ashes at the height of unrest; official tallies of injury and fatalities stood in the hundreds. The incumbent prime minister resigned, and a caretaker government headed by a non-partisan leader was instituted until new elections could be held. Worldwide coverage is concentrated on the movement's mobilization via the internet channels of Discord and Instagram, and the mobilization by means of pop-culture symbols as symbols of mobilization. Such facts accentuate a systemic break: the legitimacy of the traditional elite was publicly challenged, and the state's monopoly over the means of coercion and the safeguarding of public infrastructure was proven to be weak.

Parliamentary operation had symbolic as well as tangible immediate repercussions. Parliament buildings suffered from fires; legislative proceedings were canceled or held elsewhere; significant administration and record-keeping tasks were halted. Aside from material destruction, the political legitimacy of the prior Representatives was considerably dented among certain strata of society that were in support of or allied with the Gen-Z protests. Trust in parliamentary processes, already precarious with episodes of polarization, was subjected to a severe examination of endurance.

 4.    Institutional Harm's Impact on the Four Dimensions of Effectiveness

4.1. Institutional Continuity & Capacity

Physical loss of facilities affects the parliament's capacity in clear-cut ways: the absence of records, destroyed committee rooms, lost IT infrastructure, and disrupted administrative services all slow down law-making. Where critical facilities are affected, Parliament has to fall back on temporary premises or remote/virtual sittings. Both of which create adversity to substantive committee work and deliberation quality. Administrative staff displacement and security issues further decrease capacity for research, drafting, and continuity in legislative support services. Reconstruction of infrastructure and digital systems will thus be an early practical priority towards recovering baseline effectiveness. A conducive environment has to be created for the expected result from parliament, so that they come out of the trauma and fear is a must.

4.2. Representativeness & Legitimacy

The movement's key political message, that current political elites have fallen on corruption, inclusion, and accountability, politically challenges the parliamentary class's moral authority. Even in the event of fresh elections, legitimacy is not automatically regained: election results can be representative of continuity if incumbent party machines continue to overbear candidate selection, or fragmentary if youth factions, independent lists, and fresh movements are given a voice. Net impact on effectiveness will hinge on whether the fresh Parliament reweights representation (via fresh parties, youth quotas, or electoral reform) or re-restores the pre-crisis balance. Without tangible action to incorporate Gen-Z voices, parliamentary legitimacy suffers an extended erosion of credibility, which weakens public responsiveness to legislative output.

4.3. Law-making & Policy Responsiveness

Gen-Z uprising demands are material (reversal of social-media bans, prosecution of tainted players, compensation to the victims) and systemic (initiate reforms for openness, youth recruitment). Parliament's law-making ability will be put to the test by its ability to provide credible, timely, and effective reforms. But political salience suggests the reforms are controversial: vested interests that gained from secrecy will fight big change. The parliament's capacity to produce good policy will thus depend upon: (a) committee make-up (reformist MPs in charge of key groups with forward-looking agendas), (b) technical assistance from the secretariat (research capacity, drafting competence), and (c) effective monitoring from outside the parliament. (media scrutiny, civil society involvement).

4.4. Accountability & Oversight

An effective Parliament must be able to examine the unrest itself, security force reaction, reported abuses, and chain of command behind the excess use of force or police breakdown, free from co-optation. The movement's calls for justice and transparency put the parliament in the forefront of transitional justice questions, ownership, trust, and implementation of the upcoming report of the Karki probe commission. And if parliamentary supervision breaks down, or if committees get packed to stop involved stakeholders from being pulled out, public faith will be further shaken. But earnest and autonomous investigations by parliamentary bodies can enhance legitimacy and provide a way towards reconciliation. The evidence is in protecting oversight bodies from partisan takeover and delivering procedural fairness.

5      Political Forces Building the Next Parliament

Fundamentals of the democracy is a political parties. Several political forces will decide whether the next Parliament will function:

5.1. Electoral Rules and Timing: The party system structure of elections (e.g., open lists, thresholds, timing) will determine how representative the new parliament will be. Proportional reforms and reduced thresholds to new parties or youth lists may amplify Gen-Z voice; however, precipitous elections within established party structures might perpetuate elite dominance again.

5.2. Transitional Security and Executive Actors: The transitional regime's style, securitized crackdowns or conciliatory reforms, will define the overall tone. Military or security intervention in a political transition can undermine parliamentary autonomy if commanders hold de facto veto power.

5.3. Civil Society & Media: A vibrant civil society and independent media can act as external channels of accountability, working in unison with parliamentary committees and providing policy recommendations.

5.4. International Actors and Normative Pressure: Donors and multilateral actors can make aid conditional upon democratic guarantees, enhancing parliamentary reform incentives. These forces are interrelated: for example, international pressure for genuine elections can prevent the elite from manipulating the electoral code; a strong civil society can assist parliamentary committees in an inquiry; however, an active security sector can thwart both. (Mulmi, 2025)

6.         Obstacles to Effectiveness, Structural and Political

As the movement creates possibilities, among the long-standing hurdles, some challenges to hold back parliamentary performance. Elite Resilience and Co-optation is crucial. Political parties are institutionally well-established and possess patronage networks. Parties will evolve but co-opt Gen-Z icons without substantive reform, thus legislation will have performative instead of structural impacts.

Weak Legislative Capacity is another problem. The parliamentary secretariat and research support in Nepal have to develop fast enough to fulfill the need for high-level statutory changes (digital rights regimes, anti-corruption infrastructure). Gaps in capacity can enable poorly drafted legislation that will not pass the tests of implementation.

Security-Legitimacy Tradeoffs will be disastrous. In the transition, impunity or over-delegation to security agencies can limit Parliament from monitoring abuses or passing reforms to manage security excess.

Polarization and Fragmentation are unwanted consequences. A fractured party system consisting of several minor groupings can inhibit the formation of coalitions, causing legislative gridlock as well as short-term governments.

Public Expectations vs. Institutional Tempo always happens. The public mobilized by the movement will anticipate rapid accountability and visible change. Parliament's deliberative process is slower, creating a gap that can fuel further discontent unless expectations are met (ABC, 2025).

7.         Windows of Opportunity: Why Parliament Can Be Effective

Genuine Gen Z has to be promoted, and criminal elements should be punished, is a fundamental principle of the time and situations. The focus has to isolate the ulterior motives and promote forward-looking causes. In addition to the challenges, post-Gen-Z also brings special opportunities:

7.1. Political Shock as Catalytic Momentum: Extended splitting apart of society can lead to institutional change when political visionaries seize the agenda. The interactive tension between mass mobilization and an incoming executive dedicated to reform can facilitate legislative breakthroughs.

7.2. Youth Mobilization as Political Resource: If parties and independent candidates include youth activists and leaders in candidate lists, Parliament can be opened to new ideas and reform legitimacy steps.

7.3. International Normative Pressure and Global Visibility: International visibility of the crisis raises reputational risks for backsliding and can stimulate donor-funded legislative capacity building.

7.4. Instruments of transparency technology: Websites (utilized by Gen-Z) may be utilized for crowdsourced surveillance, live feeds on legislative action, and lessening informational asymmetries between Parliament and the masses.

7.5. Reparations and transitional justice momentum: Politically popular calls for accountability provide the Parliament with a clear mandate to craft reparations, judicial commissions, and institutional protection measures that, if implemented in earnest, can rebuild trust (The Guardian, 2025).

8.         International Experiences

8.1. Tunisia:

When mass movements topple or heavily destabilize political regimes, parliaments become where protest demands are typically translated into permanent reform. The Arab Spring gave space in Tunisia for a new constitution. But the long road from reformist constitution to de-captured, working institutions was arduous; oversight loopholes and compromised separation of powers left many early gains contingent on continued legislative follow-through to become actual. The Tunisian experience, therefore, emphasizes that popular mobilization-created constitutional space must be followed with long-term parliamentary consolidation (legal institutions, independent judiciary, and administrative capacity) to prevent reversal. (Carnegie, 2025). Tunisia has no national history to draw on in terms of how an empowered parliament should operate. Moreover, in Tunisia’s fragmented political party landscape, members of parliament from a myriad of political movements will have to find a way to work together to put institution-building ahead of their political differences. (Fride, 2012).

 

8.2. Chile:

Chile's protests of 2019–2020 similarly demonstrate how mass mobilization can force constitutional and parliamentary reckoning at the systemic level, but also how procedure and legitimacy matter. Massive public enthusiasm led to a successful referendum to draft a new constitution, but the first draft was later rejected as a reminder that inclusiveness at every stage (formation of drafting body, discussion, and final ratification) and respect for technical design are crucial if parliament-led reform processes are to be translated into popular energy into accepted, workable structures. Chile demonstrates that parliaments can be good sites for mediated reform only if processes are representative, transparent, and tied to citizen deliberation.

8.3. Iceland:

Iceland's post-2008 trial offers the reverse lesson with respect to participatory legitimacy and institutional momentum. Following the financial crisis, Iceland experienced a remarkably participatory constitutional exercise crowdsourcing initial provisions and boosting civic voice that revealed the power of public engagement in its purest form to build parliamentary legitimacy and produce innovative reform concepts. But the ultimate inability to enact the new constitution in full also underlines a structural fact: participatory feedback can reframe the agenda, but without a steadfast parliamentary and party will to institutionalize those changes, momentum can dissolve. In short, participatory drafting can maximize legitimacy but is dependent on parliament to translate it into functioning institutions.

8.4. Ukraine:

The street protests across the country that led to this outcome were spearheaded by young, enthusiastic Ukrainians. Unlike the historic movements in 2004 and 2013, protesters demanded strong, independent government institutions, rather than facing the challenges of changing the country’s strategic course or replacing the president. This new wave of civic activism underscores an evolving democratic spirit among Ukraine’s youth, determined to ensure the stability of the rule of law and institutional integrity (Nova, 2025). Ukraine achieved notable anti-corruption advances in parliament and outside parliament, but subsequent political backsliding and controversial legislative measures show how easily such gains may be undone without ongoing monitoring, civil-society scrutiny, and international attention; corrective rollbacks (or reversals) can happen quickly, illustrating the dynamic triadic relationship among protest, parliament, and public accountability.

All these examples show the underlying motifs: (1) popular forces create opportunities for substantial parliamentary reform but are no guarantee against institutionalization; (2) inclusionary mechanisms (extended participation, open rules, independent oversight) maximize the likelihood that parliamentary outputs will be legitimized and implemented; and (3) technical capacity legislative drafting support, committee independence, and post-legislative review is required to bridge mandates into effective law. For cases like Nepal's post-movement transition, these international lessons suggest prioritizing procedural legitimacy, strengthening parliamentary oversight institutions (e.g., anti-corruption and investigative committees), and balancing channels of participation for young people and civil society with real capacity building in the parliament if reform is to be lasting. (Carnegie, 2025)

9.         Policy and Institutional Recommendations

To enhance the performance of the subsequent Parliament, this paper proposes short- and medium-term measures in four directions aligned with the discussion above.

9.1. Rebuild Institutional Capacity and Continuity has to be a priority. A Quick Restoration Plan for Infrastructure is a possible way. Reconstruct parliamentary premises, computer centers, and archival documents as a top priority. Where possible, utilize hybrid (physical and virtual) models to reinstate committee work simultaneously. Emergency Legislative Secretariat Boost is also a burning issue. Increase the research and drafting personnel temporarily, perhaps supplemented by other national and international technical assistance as a model of outsourcing, to work off the backlog of critical bills and oversight questions.

9.2. Improve Representativeness & Youth Representation in all sectors of society. Electoral Reforms for Youth Representation in political parties have to be a priority. Explore temporary or constitutional solutions, such as youth quotas on party lists, incentives for taking independent youth candidates, or reserved seats, to institutionalize Gen-Z representation. Candidate Training & Rapid Civic Education is a proper solution. Assist efforts at training young candidates for legislative seats (procedure, ethics, committee work).

9.3. Increase Law-making & Policy Responsiveness for the country. Priority has to be in the Legislative Agenda. Parliament must embrace an explicit, time-limited agenda prioritizing first: (i) an overhaul of online censorship and safeguarding net rights; (ii) anti-corruption law and transparency; (iii) relief in emergency situations and reparations; and (iv) electoral and parliamentary procedure reform. Evidence-based drafting is the top priority. Develop a system of fast but evidence-based drafting (civil society and academic inputs in technical working groups).

9.4. Strengthen Oversight and Accountability is key to society. Independent Parliamentary Inquiry is an effective tool for oversight. Set up cross-party, independent inquiry committees to investigate the unrest, exercise powers of subpoena, and provide reports. Include non-partisan experts and civil society observers as an index of credibility. Effective implementation of the law is a key element for the rule of law. The Post-Legislative Scrutiny Unit has to be established. Enshrine post-legislative review to oversee law enforcement and rectification, thus enhancing the long-term quality of legislation.

9.5. Enshrine Civil-Parliamentary Dialogue for vibrant democracy. Enshrine Forums for Youth Dialogue to respect the spirit of the Gen Z movement. Hold formal, recurring forums that convene representatives of Gen-Z, civil society, and MPs to debate priorities for policy and offer scrutiny. Transparency Portals are must waited tools for anti-corruption. Increase public access to legislative documents, voting patterns, and committee reports to rebuild confidence.

Ultimately, building trust by participation, deliberation, communication, and transparent and accountable manners are key elements for the upcoming parliament. These are recommendations that need political will from the governments and political parties and concerted international backing, respectful of Nepal's sovereignty, national interests, but in favor of democratic strength instead of regression.

10.       Possible Risks and Mitigation Measures

10.1. In politics, risks are always there, but a viable solution is a way of mitigation. Different political movements that took place in Nepal before Nepal was declared a republic argue that all the earlier political movements failed to declare a republic, before 2008, due to the crisis of political leadership and leaders’ dilemma to make decisions in the right time (Devkota, 2021). There is no risk-free way of implementing reforms. The principal risks and their mitigations are as follows;

10.2. Co-optation of youth symbols by the elite is crucial. Mitigation is a tool to achieve it.  Pass an open selection of candidates by primary election both in the party and the community, and make party lists and selection criteria public before elections.

10.3. Security pushback against oversight will be another risk. Provide legal cover to parliamentary committees and insert independent international observers for controversial issues.

10.4. Rapid elections favored by incumbents will be another risk factor. To mitigate, promote neutral electoral management and international observation; permit adequate time for new party consolidation and candidate screening.

10.5. Polarization and legislative gridlock are also other risk factors. To mitigate it, establish procedural rules for vital bills (committee stage time limits) with safeguards against deliberation quality deterioration. By pre-empting such risks, Parliament and its allies can craft well-targeted interventions that maintain democratic legitimacy as well as establish order (Kathmandu Post).

11.       Conclusion

In the context of Nepal, the adoption of federalism represents a significant shift in the country's political landscape, aiming to address historical grievances, promote inclusivity, and foster socio-economic development (Devkota,2024). However huge problem in implementation fuels frustrations among youth. In this scenario, the Gen-Z movement has propelled Nepal into a high-risk political transition. The new parliament is at a turning point: it can ride the wave of reformist opinion to become an institution of democratic, sustainable transformation, or keep on with the old elite accommodation politics that do not deal with the sources of the grievances that drove the revolution. Parliamentary performance in this respect is not an inevitable byproduct of elections but is contingent on conscious efforts to recreate capacity, increase representation (particularly youth), enhance the quality of legislation, and create sound mechanisms of oversight capable of focusing on suspected abuses amidst the chaos.

Ultimately, the route to a good parliament goes through an equilibrium between public expectations and institutional reform. Quick, open, and effective policymaking in the context of the Gen-Z movement requires participatory electoral processes and independent scrutiny to regain trust and make the parliament the master builder of responsible governance. Instability perpetually and repeatedly performed is the alternative. The hour is delicate but holds an unprecedented chance: if Parliament seizes on propounding reform and inclusiveness, it can convert the pause into a sustainable revival of Nepal's democratic institutions (Reuters, 2025). Finally, let's hope, let's make a plan for forward-looking change as the spirits of the Gen Z movement, and isolate criminal elements and their ulterior motives wherever they are.

12.       References

Devkota, K. (2021). Leadership Crisis in Nepali Politics: Specific Focus on National Parties in the Context of Declaration of the Republic. Social Inquiry: Journal of Social Science Research, 1(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3126/sijssr.v1i1.26915.

Devkota, K. (2024). Cooperative Federalism in the Nepali Constitution: A Comprehensive Analysis. Samsad Journal 1(1), 51-66. https://doi.org/10.3126/sj.v1i1.75903

Fride, (2012). Parliamentary reform after the Arab spring, Policy brief. 

Nova (2025) Ukraine’s Parliament Restores Independence to Anti-Corruption Agencies. Nova, Ukraine.

Mulmi, A.R. (2025). From street to discord: How toppled the Nepal's Government. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2025/09/nepal-gen-z-topple-government?lang=en.

Hannah Ellis-Petersen & Gaurav Pokharel. (9 September 2025). The Nepalese government removes social media ban following protests [The Guardian/BBC reporting used in summaries]. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/sep/09.

Reuters. (14 September 2025). Number of deaths from Nepal's anti-corruption protests raised to 72.Reuters.,https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/death-toll-nepals-anti-corruption-protests-raised-72-2025-09-14/.

ABC News. (15 September 2025). Nepal's Generation Z calls for change as nation embarks on new transition. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-09-15/nepal-generation-z-anti-corruption-protests-kathmandu/105773042.

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. (24 September 2025). From streets to Discord: How Nepal's Gen Z overthrew a government Analysis.

Kathmandu Post Editorial. (12 October 2025). Divided, Gen Z falls. The Kathmandu Post. https://kathmandupost.com/editorial/2025/10/12/divided-gen-z-falls.

 

कुलमानले प्रचण्डलाई किन पत्याएनन् ? निर्धारित मितिमै चुनाव अपरिहार्य । I...

स्थायित्वको नारा, असन्तोषको यथार्थ

स्थायित्वको नारा, असन्तोषको यथार्थ: जेनजी आन्दोलनलगत्तै नेतृत्व छोड्न अत्यन्त दवावमा रहेका केपी ओली नेतृत्वको नेकपा (एमाले) को एघारौं महाधिवेशनलाई संस्थापन पक्षले औपचारिकरूपमा ‘एकता, अनुशासन र स्थायित्व’को महाधिवेशन भनेर चित्रण गर्न कोसिस गर्‍यो । तर महाधिवेशनका दृश्य– अदृश्य पक्ष, नेतृत्व चयनको प्रक्रिया र राजनीतिक सन्देशले भने फरक यथार्थ उजागर गर्‍यो । यो महाधिवेशन संगठन सुदृढीकरणभन्दा...

 

चुनावको माहोल : नेतृत्व, शक्ति–सन्तुलन र भूराजनीतिक संकेत

पुराना शीर्ष नेताहरू केपी, प्रचण्ड र देउवा नै फेरि पनि चर्चाको केन्द्रमा छन् । तर, यसपालि तस्बिर बदलिएको छ । युवा पुस्ताका आकांक्षा, वैकल्पिक नेतृत्वको खोजी, स्थानीय सरकारको प्रभाव, निराश मतदाताको मनोविज्ञान तथा अमेरिका–चीन–भारतको रणनीतिक रुचिले चुनावी वातावरणलाई थप जटिल बनाएको छ ।https://www.onlinekhabar.com/2025/12/1817740/election-atmosphere-leadership-balance-of-power-and-geopolitical-signals 

जेनजी विद्रोहपछिको नेपाललाई न्युयोर्क र बिहार चुनावको सन्देश

https://www.onlinekhabar.com/2025/11/1807974/the-message-of-the-new-york-and-bihar-elections-to-nepal-after-the-genji-rebellion 

सरकारसँगको अपेक्षा

सरकारसँगको अपेक्षा: सुशासन कुनै एजेण्डा होइन, लोकतान्त्रिक स्थिरता, न्याय र समृद्ध राष्ट्रको आधारशिला हो । पारदर्शिता, जवाफदेहिता, सहभागिता र शक्ति–संयमित संरचनाबिना सुशासनको कल्पना पनि गर्न सकिँदैन । तर, नेपालमा राजनीतिक नेतृत्वको संक्रमण आशाले सुरु र निराशाले अन्त्य हुने चलन जस्तै छ । यही अस्थिरता, अविश्वास र दण्डहीनताले नागरिक जीवन, राज्यका संरचना र...

अझै छ विदेशी खेलको संकेत ? के होला अबको देश ? - CHHA PRASNA

अझै छ विदेशी खेलको संकेत ? के होला अबको देश ? - CHHA PRASNA

संविधानको कुन धाराबाट बनेको हो यो सरकार ? खिमलाल देवकोटा / चुनाव हुन्छ भ...

पुरानो राजनीतिले बुझ्न नसकेको नयाँ पुस्ताको सोच

https://www.onlinekhabar.com/2025/11/1801067/the-thinking-of-the-new-generation-that-the-old-politics-cannot-understand 

नेपाल अहिले राजनीतिक रूपमा अत्यन्तै संवेदनशील चरणमा अनुमानै गर्न नसकिने अस्थिरताबाट गुज्रिइरहेको छ। संविधानसभाबाट बनेको संविधान छ, सोही संविधानको शपथ खाएको सरकार छ। यसको कार्यभार विघटित प्रतिनिधिसभाको निर्वाचन घोषित मितिमै गराउनुछ। यद्यपि, यो सरकार संविधानको सरकार बन्ने धारा ७६ बमोजिम बनेको हैन।

वैधताको धरापमा उभिएको सरकार हुनुका नाताले संक्रमणको यो संवेदनशील घडीमा सडकदेखि सरकारसम्म, गाउँदेखि शहरसम्म, सानो नीतिगत निर्णयले पनि अस्थिरता सिर्जना गर्न काफी हुन्छ।

Yaksha Prashna with Khimlal Devkota

In conversation with Khimlal Devkota on TJ

 

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1AFxnzdrfg/

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1AFxnzdrfg/ 

चुनाव, वैधता र भूराजनीतिक चपेटामा अन्तरिम सरकार

सामाजिक सञ्जाल–आधारित विद्यार्थी/युवा आन्दोलन (जेनजी आन्दोलन) को तीव्र उदयले राजनीतिक संकट उत्पन्न गर्‍यो । दर्जनौंको ज्यान र अरबौंको धनको नाशपछि प्रधानमन्त्रीको राजीनामा र संसद्को विघटन हुँदै सुशीला कार्की नेतृत्वको अन्तरिम सरकार गठन भयो ।

हालको अन्तरिम सरकारलाई नियुक्तिका बखत नै राष्ट्रपतिबाट फागुन २१ मा निर्वाचन गराउने जिम्मेवारी दिइएको छ । यति महत्वको जिम्मेवारी सहित गठन भएको सरकारका कार्यभार के के हुन् ? लेखमा यसबारे चर्चा गरिनेछ ।https://www.onlinekhabar.com/2025/10/1792095/elections-legitimacy-and-geopolitical-tensions-in-the-interim-government 

Expectations from a Karki-led government facing challenges in terms of good governance

Expectations from a Karki-led government facing challenges in terms of good governance

Dr. Khimlal Devkota

Member of the Constituent Assembly and Senior Advocate

Introduction

Good governance is the cornerstone of democratic stability, justice, and development. It refers to the effective, transparent, accountable, and participatory use of power in the management of the country's resources and affairs. In Nepal's political landscape, leadership transitions have often come with hopes of reform and disappointment in performance. Among those who have captured the public's attention for their integrity, courage, and commitment to justice, Sushila Karki stands out as a rare figure. Whether she is in this position by necessity or by someone's design, the future will confirm. However, the ethics and judicial activism she demonstrated as the first female Chief Justice before becoming Prime Minister continue to pave the way for discussions about the kind of governance Nepal wants.

This article discusses the expectations that the Nepali people and democratic institutions have of a Prime Minister like Sushila Karki. It is natural to expect more from Sushila Karki, who is especially imbued with a deep understanding of law, ethics, and justice, especially in the context of good governance. Especially her statement that corruption can be ended in a week, even if it is only five of her leaders, has become a yardstick by which to measure her.

The six-month government, with the election as its main responsibility, faced the sarcasm of the ousted Prime Minister, her own prejudices towards political parties, the controversial past of the government ministers, the situation where the asset details have not been made public so far, and the Council of Ministers has not even been given a complete mandate.

Various demands of various kinds of genji, most of the demands are outside the constitution, the government formed on the foundation of the movement for good governance, the start of the recovery business from hydro, the eternal movement and its economy, youth psychology and on top of that, the bread of foreign interests, the Dalai Lama's death in this mess and the increased interest of the West are the burning issues of Nepali politics today. The current government, eager to travel on the edge of the khukuri by solving all these issues, is on a mountain of challenges. The government is in a dilemma of reaching its destination or surrendering itself.

Less than a month after the formation of the government, there has been an attempt to put pressure by naming another former Chief Justice and a former President. Balen and Sudhan, who were pressuring Oli and Lekhak to arrest them, have given up after a complaint was filed against them. Miraj, Durga, and Nikolas are busy in their shops, and Balen and Victor are busy with hot ashes. Nepali politics is in a place where it is impossible to review. In such an environment, there is a government led by Sushila Karki. It is needless to keep repeating that there is no easy solution like shouting on the streets. In any case, Nepali politics is in the throes of a crisis. If the crisis can be resolved, progress can be made; otherwise, the very existence of the country is in danger. The people have not stopped expecting good governance from a government born in such a background.

1. The challenge of establishing integrity and moral leadership

The foundation of good governance is honesty. The moral commitment to work for the public good rather than personal or party gain is the main thing. The challenges of Nepal's governance largely arise from the crisis of people's trust in the leadership. Sushila Karki, known for her uncompromising stance against corruption and political influence in the judiciary, has naturally expected reform-oriented results.

During her tenure as Chief Justice, her judicial career was characterized by personal integrity and refusal to bow to political pressure, in addition to the appointment of judges. As Prime Minister, similar ethical leadership is expected, one that emphasizes clean politics, transparently declares assets, and ensures that all members of the government adhere to conflict of interest standards. Such ethical leadership can help restore the moral compass of governance in Nepal, inspiring both the bureaucracy and citizens to act ethically.

2. Another challenge is the expectation to strengthen the rule of law

The rule of law is the backbone of democratic governance. Sushila Karki’s legal background will enable her to ensure that laws are implemented fairly and institutions operate independently. One of her landmark decisions as Chief Justice, disqualifying politically connected candidates from government contracts and appointments, demonstrated her belief that no one is above the law. Against this backdrop, as Prime Minister, her approach is likely to focus on:

• ·Ensuring the independence of the judiciary and constitutional commissions from executive interference.
• · Promoting law reforms that are consistent with constitutional principles and international standards.
• ·Implement judicial accountability through transparent appointment and performance appraisal mechanisms.
• ·Strengthen constitutional bodies and other monitoring and oversight institutions to check executive overreach.
• ·Emphasis on the rule of law will prevent arbitrary use of power and promote predictability in governance, an essential feature of good governance.

3. The challenge of systematically combating corruption

Corruption is Nepal’s most entrenched disease, which has become a formidable challenge to governance, undermining development and trust in democracy. Sushila Karki’s judicial history was a continuous effort to discourage corruption and abuse of power. One of theAs Prime Minister, the public expects him to institutionalize anti-corruption reforms and see results. His good governance agenda is likely to include:

• ·  Strengthening the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority through genuine independence and legal clarity.
• ·       Promoting whistleblower protection laws and citizen oversight mechanisms.
• ·       Enhancing transparency in public procurement through digital platforms and audit systems.
• ·       Promoting public officials’ asset disclosures.
• ·       Promoting a culture of accountability at all levels of federal, provincial, and local government.
• Contrary to popular anti-corruption slogans and stunts, his legal approach will emphasize institutional reform, legal safeguards, and citizen empowerment, not political retribution.

4. The challenge of promoting transparency and the right to information

Transparency is a prerequisite for accountability. The Nepalese state has struggled to institutionalize practical transparency beyond the rhetoric of open government. Sushila Karki's government will ensure justice and not be subjected to injustice, which is seen in practice as naturally consistent with the principles of open governance based on the belief that there should be no injustice. In the role of Prime Minister, her initiatives may include the following:

5. The Challenge of Accountability and Performance-Based Governance

Accountability is the belief that those exercising public power are responsible for their actions. Lack of monitoring, weak oversight and political protectionism have weakened Nepal’s governance culture. This government is expected to deliver a different perception, with accountability not seen as punishment, but as a continuous process of performance monitoring. A Karki-led government is likely to do the following:

• ·       Institute performance agreements for ministers, civil servants and public enterprises in practice.
• ·   Strengthen parliamentary committees for effective monitoring, oversight and oversight of all executive decisions of the government.
• ·    Promote post-legislative scrutiny to measure the implementation of laws, assess their effectiveness, and ensure their implementation.
• ·       Encourage the Office of the Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee to work without fear or favor.
• ·   Such systems-based accountability will transform Nepal from a culture of impunity to one of accountability and measurable governance.

6. The challenge of establishing gender justice and inclusive leadership

As the first female Chief Justice, Sushila Karki is a symbol of breaking gender barriers in the history of Nepal’s governance. Prime Minister Karki is expected to further advance gender equality and inclusion not only through representation but also through structural reforms. Her governance priorities are expected to include:

• ·       Ensure 50% representation of women in decision-making bodies.
• ·       Maintain gender-responsive budgeting in all ministries.
• ·  Enforce laws against gender-based violence through fast-track courts and victim-friendly mechanisms.
• ·     Promote inclusive governance that ensures the participation of Dalits, Janajati, Madhesi, Tharu, and persons with disabilities. Her leadership will be particularly effective in redefining how women in power can apply empathy, fairness, and assertiveness, critical elements of good governance in a democracy practiced in a diverse society.

7. The Challenge of Establishing Administrative Reforms and Meritocracy

Nepal’s bureaucracy, which is often criticized for being politicized, needs to be transformed into a merit-based, citizen-serving institution. Sushila Karki’s judicial professionalism will also be able to bring about revolutionary changes in the bureaucracy. With such a background, it is expected that a Prime Minister with such a background will focus on the following:

• ·   Depoliticizing the civil service recruitment and promotion system.
• ·   Expanding the practice of e-governance to reduce arbitrariness and speed up service delivery.
• ·   Establishing a Citizen Charter Evaluation Mechanism to ensure that public services meet the standards of commitment.
• ·    Encouraging capacity building and professional ethics among public officials. These administrative reforms will reduce the potential for corruption, improve efficiency, and make the government more responsive to the needs of citizens..

8. The challenge of maintaining citizen-centric governance

The ultimate goal of good governance is to provide effective and impartial services to citizens. Karki's public image as a judicial leader will not be an obstacle to the development of democracy. As Prime Minister, his governance model will likely be based on the following facts:

• ·      Strengthening federalism, including enhancing the autonomy and capacity of provincial and local governments.
• ·       Promoting participatory planning and community monitoring of local projects.
• ·       Developing efficient grievance redressal mechanisms at all administrative levels.
• ·     Bridging the gap between citizens and the state through digital platforms and social accountability.
• ·    Such a citizen-first governance model will redefine the social contract between the state and the people.

9. The challenge of adopting judicial-executive balance and constitutionality

As a figure who has already led the judiciary, Karki will be ready to be open and transparent about the constitutionality of every executive decision. As Prime Minister, he is also expected to maintain institutional balance and curb the executive encroachment that often plagues Nepali politics. His rule is likely to emphasize the following:

• ·    Prioritizing the separation of powers between the executive, legislature, and judiciary
• ·     Respecting judicial decisions even when politically inconvenient and inconvenient.
• ·    Providing an environment for constitutional commissions to function independently within their jurisdiction.
• ·    Creating an environment where citizens understand their rights and duties
• ·    This approach will not only curb authoritarian tendencies but also strengthen democratic norms within the governance structure.

10. The Challenge of Implementing a Vision for Sustainable and Just Development

Ultimately, good governance cannot be separated from development. For Sushila Karki, justice and governance are intertwined. Even if the relationship between development and justice is not defined, justice without development is incomplete. A government led by her will seek to integrate the two. To this end, she will promote:

• · Implementing sustainable development policies guided by environmental justice and intergenerational equity;
• ·       Preparing the basis for evidence-based policymaking based on social impact assessments;
• ·       Ensuring integrity in development projects, donor coordination, and transparency in infrastructure agreements, while promoting the national interest;
• ·       Investing in education, health, and access to digital technology to empower citizens as partners in governance.
• ·   This approach links justice with prosperity, ensuring that governance reforms translate into tangible improvements in the lives of citizens.

Conclusion:

Nepal’s democratic journey has been fraught with transitions, frequent changes of government, politicized public institutions, and crises of trust. In this context, Sushila Karki’s government as Prime Minister will be more pragmatic than imaginative. It will embody the nation’s desire for ethical, courageous, and just leadership. Her judicial record reflects the central principles of good governance: integrity, transparency, rule of law, accountability, gender equality, and inclusion. While actual governance will be shaped by political outcomes, the values associated with Karki’s leadership will provide moral and institutional guidelines for Nepal’s democratic future. In a society that longs for clean politics and efficient administration, the expectations from leaders like Sushila Karki, honest, principled, and fearless, are a symbol of hope that good governance in Nepal is not just an aspiration, but a goal that can be achieved through law-based, people-centered, and justice-oriented leadership.