Gen Z youths split over call for directly elected executive

Gen Z Youths Split Over Call for Directly Elected Executive in Nepal

In the wake of a political upheaval that saw the dissolution of Nepal’s Parliament and the fall of its government, the country’s Gen Z movement has emerged as a formidable force demanding systemic change.

Central to the current debate is the call for a directly elected executive head, a proposal that has sharply divided the youth-led movement and reignited long-standing constitutional tensions.

The Gen Z movement, which gained momentum through mass protests and digital mobilization, has continued to press for reforms even after the formation of an interim government.

While some factions within the movement view the upcoming March 5 elections as an opportunity to introduce a directly elected executive, others remain cautious, citing concerns over legal feasibility and democratic safeguards. This internal split reflects broader national anxieties about the future of Nepal’s governance.

Proponents argue that a directly elected executive would provide stability, accountability, and a clear mandate from the people—qualities they believe are lacking in the current parliamentary system. They point to repeated government collapses and the influence of small coalition partners as evidence of systemic fragility.

Drawing parallels with youth-led protests in Madagascar, where demonstrators are demanding the removal of a directly elected president, Nepal’s Gen Z activists insist that their version of direct democracy would be more transparent and responsive.

However, constitutional experts warn that Nepal’s legal framework does not currently support such a shift. With Parliament dissolved, any amendment to the constitution would be procedurally impossible until a new legislature is in place. This has led to concerns that pushing for a directly elected executive now could destabilize the interim government and derail the electoral process.

Historically, the idea of a directly elected executive was championed by the CPN (Maoist Centre) during Nepal’s first and second constituent assemblies. Yet, the proposal was ultimately abandoned in favor of consensus-building, as the Nepali Congress and CPN-UML, then the two largest parties, rejected it.

Congress leaders have maintained that a parliamentary prime minister ensures inclusivity and accountability, arguing that a directly elected executive could concentrate power and risk authoritarianism.

Despite these concerns, some Maoist Centre leaders, including Shakti Basnet, continue to advocate for the model, citing the need for a strong and independent executive capable of navigating Nepal’s complex political landscape. They acknowledge the challenges but emphasize the potential for transformative governance.

At the heart of the debate lies a deeper frustration with corruption, nepotism, and the erosion of public trust. Gen Z activists have called for investigations into former Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak, and other officials, accusing them of undermining democratic institutions. Their demands reflect a broader desire for accountability and a break from entrenched political dynasties.

As Nepal approaches its March elections, the question of executive structure remains unresolved. The Gen Z movement, though divided, continues to shape the national conversation, challenging traditional power structures and pushing for a reimagined future.

Whether their call for a directly elected executive will gain traction or falter under constitutional constraints remains to be seen, but their impact on Nepal’s political discourse is undeniable.