Nepal’s Gen Z Show People Hold Power Above the Constitution
They Installed Former Chief Justice Sushila Karki Without Constitutional Basis
By Vishal Arora
September 16, 2025
An underage relative stands beside a coffin in Kathmandu on Sept. 16, as several youths killed during the protests received their last rites. Photo by Harshita Rathore
In Nepal, a Gen Z movement recently brought down the government and demanded that Sushila Karki, a former Chief Justice of the country, be appointed interim Prime Minister. Although the Constitution bars anyone who has held that office from becoming head of government, the state agreed. This agreement demonstrated a core idea in political theory that the people, not the written text, are the true source of authority. It also stands as a warning to governments everywhere.
First, let’s look at what happened, why it happened and how it unfolded, based on a report by The Himalayan Times, a newspaper in Nepal.
What Really Happened
In August, Nepal witnessed the rise of a social media trend called the “Nepo Kid” campaign (a phrase adapted from the English word “nepotism”), which called out the children of politicians for enjoying lavish lifestyles built on their parents’ power and wealth, in sharp contrast to the daily struggles faced by ordinary citizens, including unemployment, poor education and economic instability. It spread rapidly across platforms like Instagram, Reddit and X. The campaign tapped into deep frustration among young Nepalis who felt they had been denied basic opportunities while a political elite enriched itself through power and connections.
Instead of responding to this growing anger, the government, led by K.P. Sharma Oli, who is from the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist–Leninist), or UML, banned 26 major social media platforms, citing failure to register under a 2023 regulation aimed at controlling online content. UML is one of the three mainstream parties, apart from the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre) and the Nepali Congress, that have dominated politics since the monarchy was abolished in 2008. By this point, public anger was directed at all three, with widespread disillusionment over their failure to deliver on promises of reform and accountability.
The ban came just as the “Nepo Kid” campaign was gaining traction, public anger over corruption expressed on social media was rising, and younger figures in public life, such as Kathmandu Mayor Balen Shah, had set an example of better governance. This made the ban seem like an attempt to silence criticism rather than enforce policy. The youth saw it as a threat to free expression and called for nationwide protests on Sept. 8, organised through platforms like Discord, Reddit and TikTok. The protests began peacefully, with students wearing school uniforms to shield themselves from police violence under protections provided by both international law and Nepal’s Constitution. They used music, satire and public marches to voice their demands.
But as crowds grew, alleged infiltrators with separate agendas triggered confrontations at the gates of Parliament. Police responded with excessive force, including tear gas, water cannons, batons and live ammunition, most of it aimed at the upper bodies of protesters and in violation of Nepal’s own laws. At least 19 people were killed that day, and more than 400 were injured, many of them teenagers.
The brutality shocked the country and turned the protest into a national uprising the next day, on Sept. 9. Faced with public outrage, attacks on political residences and the breakdown of state control, Prime Minister Oli and his ministers resigned and went into hiding. Some were physically attacked. The government had not been brought down by a no-confidence vote, but by a collapse of public trust and its own resort to violence.
Basis of a Government
This crisis in Nepal demonstrates a classic problem in political theory that the English philosopher John Locke explored in his work “Two Treatises of Government” in the 17th century. Locke wrote that governments are not natural or permanent, that they exist because people agree to give up some of their freedoms in exchange for protection of their life, liberty and property. This agreement is what political theory calls a “social contract.” The authority of any government depends on the trust placed in it by the people. That trust is not unlimited. If those in power break the terms of the contract, by abusing their position, acting against the public good or failing to protect citizens, then, according to Locke, the people are justified in withdrawing their consent and replacing that government with one that will uphold their rights.
For the youngsters of Nepal, the breaking point came when the state used violence against its own people, many of them children and students, who were peacefully demanding accountability. Their movement was an effort to restore the moral and political foundations of the state, after the elected leaders, police and Parliament had either abandoned their duties or turned their power against the people.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, an 18th-century philosopher from Geneva, took the idea of people’s power even further. In his work, “The Social Contract,” Rousseau argued that sovereignty, which is the ultimate authority to decide how a society is governed, cannot be divided or handed over. It belongs entirely to the people, and only the people can decide how they want to be ruled. He rejected the idea that power can rest with kings, parliaments or courts unless it reflects the collective will of the citizens, which he called the “general will.”
In Nepal, the decision by protesting youth to demand that a former Chief Justice lead an interim government was an expression of that very principle. Their choice did not follow party lines or political patronage. It was a reassertion of popular sovereignty, especially during moments of national crisis. By selecting someone known for independence and integrity, the youth turned to the memory of institutions that once carried public trust. In bypassing constitutional formalities, they aimed to restore the idea of government as a structure that exists to serve its citizens, at a time when that structure had already broken down under the pressure of corruption and state violence.
Carl Schmitt, a German political theorist known for his work on constitutional crisis, wrote that the sovereign is the one who decides during exceptional situations. He argued that in moments when the legal order breaks down and normal procedures cannot function, someone must act to preserve the system. For Schmitt, sovereignty does not reveal itself through routine governance, but through the ability to act outside legal limits in order to defend the legal structure itself. That idea is now unfolding in Nepal.
Even so, this moment raises difficult and important questions.
If public mobilisation is allowed to override constitutional rules because the people believe it is morally justified or urgently necessary, what prevents some future force from using the same reasoning to seize power for less legitimate ends? In situations where the state has collapsed, a temporary break from formal legality may be necessary to restore order. But that break must remain temporary. The interim government must act within a clear and limited scope, focused only on restoring basic governance and preparing for a return to constitutional procedures.
After all, a constitution sets limits on power and defines the principles by which a country is governed. Without it, decisions can follow the will of the majority alone, even when that majority acts without regard for justice, rights or minority protections.
Need for Caution
The Nepal case also reopens a debate over what constitutes a valid constitution.
Hans Kelsen, an Austrian legal philosopher, made an important distinction between the written laws of a country and what he called the Grundnorm, or basic norm. This basic norm is not found in any single legal document. It is the shared belief that the legal system as a whole is valid and must be followed for collective wellbeing. All other laws depend on this underlying assumption for their authority. If a country’s constitution stops working in practice, if its institutions stop following it, if it fails to contain violence, or if its procedures fall apart, then this basic norm can collapse. In such moments, the people may create a new basic norm through collective action that reflects a different foundation of legitimacy.
In Nepal, the online vote to select Ms. Karki as interim Prime Minister, and the quick acceptance of that choice by the public, the Army and the President, may be an example of such a shift. The appointment did not follow the Constitution, but it gained popular support and was recognised by major state institutions. This may show the formation of a new basic norm, one created not through legal amendment but through popular legitimacy and institutional agreement.
Nepal is not the first country to witness such a breach in constitutional formality followed by public reconstruction. But it is rare for the catalyst to be this young and this organised. Their decisions suggest that political legitimacy today can form outside parliaments, build pressure through networks and claim moral authority ahead of legal validation.
You have just read a News Briefing by Newsreel Asia, written to cut through the noise and present a single story for the day that matters to you. Certain briefings, based on media reports, seek to keep readers informed about events across India, others offer a perspective rooted in humanitarian concerns and some provide our own exclusive reporting. We encourage you to read the News Briefing each day. Our objective is to help you become not just an informed citizen, but an engaged and responsible one.
