Nepal’s return to ‘normal’ after the Gen Z movement is deeply unsettling. Most leaders have resumed lying, squabbling and frantic alliance-building. The upcoming March 5 elections threaten to restore the same discredited status quo. For a nation of revolutions, this is a familiar moment of disillusionment. If the Gen Z movement is not to be futile, we must confront what earlier movements failed to. At the heart of Gen Z’s mobilisation is Nepal’s failed post-2006 transitional justice initiative. For too long, the state failed to hold perpetrators accountable and address the structural injustices that fueled conflict in the first place. From this past come lessons that must now guide the path forward.

Breaking cycle of impunity

Three interlocking strains of impunity pervade: Accountability for conflict-era violations has not been delivered; violence, especially targeted towards women and marginalised communities, persists unpunished; and leaders routinely evade accountability for corruption.

Because these violations implicate powerful actors across party lines, leaders have protected themselves and their patron networks. Through politically motivated appointments, independent commissions such as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons and the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority have been obfuscated. Oversight laws have been designed to evade accountability. Successive transitional justice laws, for example, have sought to incorporate amnesties for serious violations of human rights.

Uncompromising accountability

The urgent need for accountability for September 8 and 9 cannot be overstated. The state violence has been condemned nationally and internationally as a grave violation of human rights. Evidence is abundant: Police logs reflect the excess ammunition used, forensic and medical reports clearly indicate that nearly all gunfire victims were struck in the head, neck and chest, and credible video evidence of the police’s use of excessive force is available. Yet justice has been denied. While symbolic gestures such as declaration of martyrdom can be meaningful, punitive measures against both the police who fired shots and the officials who ordered them are imperative. These sanctions will be critical to establishing the rule of law, overcoming an entrenched culture of impunity, preventing recurrence and delivering justice as demanded by victims and their families.

To break the cycle of impunity, we must also stress accountability as a long-term agenda. This includes accountability for corruption and violations of rights. Both justice for the victims of conflict-era crimes and a culture of sustained scrutiny of police violence against minorities, in cases such as the 2015 Tarai violence, are crucial. Nepal’s democratic transition is incomplete without it.

The promise of ‘New Nepal’

The movements of our past have left behind two core grievances. First, dissatisfaction with poor governance, corruption, political instability and underdevelopment. Second, prevalent patriarchy, ethnic and linguistic alienation, caste discrimination and denial of social and economic rights of marginalised communities. The Maoist vision for a democratic and egalitarian society, therefore, resonated broadly and powerfully. But it failed to materialise. Gen Z inherited these same grievances.

To avoid repeating the failure at addressing structural injustice, we must learn from the three fatal errors of the past. First, the vision of a New Nepal turned immediately hazy after the revolution, as parties rapidly splintered, and political drama overshadowed the pre-existing consensus that structural change was pertinent. Secondly, the pursuit of equality across ethnicity, caste and gender took a merely symbolic rather than institutional form, betraying the communities that had supported the revolution. Finally, the new vision failed due to corruption. Leaders distanced themselves from the working class, grew their power and filled their coffers. Gen Z took this issue head-on by waging an anti-corruption movement.

Protection of the right to protest

Protest has been an indispensable tool for us, and we must demand the right to it. Due to the systematic exclusion of youth from formal politics, youth populations around the world have cultivated a generational culture of informal politics. Protest serves as a means of civic engagement and is central to democracy’s future. In Nepal, youth movements have been common, and the Gen Z movement consolidated this practice. Even as some youth and youth-favoured candidates make their way into formal politics, protest will continue to be a crucial tool for us to hold our leaders accountable.

The protection of the right to protest is also critical to sustaining peace. The arson and mob violence of September 9 are explicable not only by theories of infiltration and opportunism but also by state repression. It is a well-established link that when there is a well-protected right to protest peacefully, the risk of violent outbursts is greatly diminished. The atrocities of the Gen Z movement, towards and by protestors, must not be repeated. For democratic consolidation, there is a humanitarian and practical need to protect the right to protest.

Strategic regrouping

Factionalism has torn apart many promising movements by detracting from their aim and increasing the risk of co-optation. Early signs are already visible. Multiple ideologically divergent groups have claimed leadership of the Gen Z movement, many affiliating themselves with old, discredited political factions. If this moment is reduced to infighting for political seats rather than uniting for our core consensus, Gen Z-ers will be repeating the fatal mistakes of the past. Our regrouping must be deliberate and inclusive. Organisations like the National Dalit Commission have rightly criticised the failure of youth blocs to represent their grievances. Meaningful inclusion and trust-building across communities are foundational to forging a movement capable of resisting co-optation and exerting sustained political influence.

Structural reform

Nepal’s past makes one lesson unmistakably clear: Changing rulers without changing structures is a gamble the country has repeatedly lost. Achieving a favourable electoral outcome is insufficient. It is structural reforms, not blind faith in leaders, that ensures enduring change. Reasonable voters can, and should, disagree on the contours of these reforms. However, core demands must include structural reform. This includes anti-corruption reforms, such as restructuring agencies and reforming appointment policies to ensure checks and balances; institutional reform of the judiciary, police and army aimed at overcoming impunity; and effective addressing of inequalities.

Conclusion

If the demands of the Gen Z movement are allowed to dissipate into factionalism, delay and co-optation, this moment will join a long list of revolutions remembered more for their promise than their outcome. The responsibility to change that fate now rests with us. This is not a moment to wait anxiously for election results. If Gen Z does not unite to demand more than the ballot, Nepal will once again slip back into the politics it claims to have rejected.