Nepal is undergoing a momentous political shift. The Gen Z movement—youth-driven, socially active, digitally connected—has ignited fresh debates about how power is structured in the country. Key demands: more accountability, less corruption, and major constitutional reforms, including whether the Prime Minister should be directly elected rather than chosen by Parliament.
As Nepal heads toward general elections on March 5, 2026, many are wondering: will the system of governance change? Will there be an interim constitution? Will a directly elected PM become a reality? This post explores where things stand now, what the legal and political hurdles are, and what likely scenarios may unfold.
What’s happening now: Gen Z Movement & Interim Government
After widespread protests over issues like social media bans, corruption, and youth unemployment, Parliament has been dissolved, and Sushila Karki, former Supreme Court Chief Justice, was appointed interim Prime Minister.
The interim government’s mandate is mostly to ensure fresh elections (scheduled for March 5, 2026) are held on time and safely.
The constitution currently says the Prime Minister is chosen by the Parliament (House of Representatives), not by popular direct vote.
The Directly Elected Prime Minister: Pros, Cons & Realities
What some Gen Z youth want:
A directly elected Prime Minister (executive head) so that leadership is more accountable and personalized.
They argue that this could reduce the instability of frequent coalition collapse or parliamentary back-and-forth.
What the Constitution currently allows:
Under the present Constitution of Nepal (2015 / 2072 Bikram Sambat), there is no provision for a directly elected Prime Minister.
Changing this would require a constitutional amendment, which demands a two-thirds majority in the Federal Parliament (both Houses).
What stands in the way:
The Parliament is dissolved now, so there is no sitting legislature to pass such constitutional amendments before the next elections.
Even after elections, getting a two-thirds majority is very difficult in Nepal’s multi-party system. The political parties are split, regional, ideological, etc.
Concerns about checks and balances: a directly elected executive may concentrate power, risk conflict between executive and legislative branches, and reduce the influence of proportional or minority representation.
Will There Be an Interim Constitution?
An “interim constitution” means a temporary legal framework overriding or replacing parts of the current Constitution until a new, agreed constitution can be written or permanently revised.
History & precedent:
Nepal has had an interim constitution before (2007, after the People’s Movement II), during a political transition.
Current status:
As of now, there is no declared plan by the interim government or Gen Z leadership to issue an interim constitution. The interim government has stated that its mandate does not include fundamental system changes—that’s for the next Parliament, after elections.
Constitutional experts warn that an interim constitution now could be illegitimate, or that issuing one without wide political consensus could result in constitutional crisis.
Likely Scenarios: What the Near Future May Hold
Here are possible paths Nepal might take over the next months to a few years, given the political realities:
Scenario What happens Pros Challenges / Risks
Status quo + strengthened parliamentary system Elections happen in March 2026 under current constitution. The PM is chosen by Parliament. Gen Z demands for reform are pushed into the election manifestos. After election, parties negotiate amendments if they have enough seats. Less disruption; preserves constitutional continuity; possible incremental reforms. Slow change; possibility of diluted promises; risk of political instability remains if coalitions are fragile.
Amended Constitution, directly elected PM becomes option later After election, a reformist coalition secures enough seats to propose constitutional amendments. A referendum or Parliament vote follows. Maybe the directly elected PM model is introduced for subsequent elections. Potential for major democratic reform; responds to Gen Z demands; boosts legitimacy of executive. Needs strong political will; risk of polarization; legal and institutional redesign needed (separation of powers, election rules, checks and balances).
Interim constitution through political consensus A rare outcome: major political forces including classes, civil society, Gen Z leaders, possibly parties come together to suspend parts of constitution temporarily, forming an interim constitution to set up reforms. Could accelerate reform; serve as bridge between what people want and what system allows. Hard to get agreement; risk of constitutional ambiguity; risk of instability or misuse.
Pushback / reversal Traditional parties resist or co-opt the reform agenda. After elections, few changes happen. Protests continue, but system remains largely the same. Stability in terms of legal order; less risk of unforeseen constitutional consequences. Disillusionment among youth; potential for renewed unrest; credibility cost for parties and government.
My Prediction: What’s Most Likely
Given all this, here’s what seems most plausible:
Nepal will not have a directly elected Prime Minister as of the March 2026 elections under the existing constitution. The legal barriers, dissolved parliament, and lack of consensus make that very hard.
There will be heightened political pressure, campaign promises, and perhaps even constitutional amendment proposals after the elections for exactly that demand.
An interim constitution seems unlikely in the immediate term unless there is a mass political consensus (which is challenging). Most likely reforms will happen via constitutional amendments rather than replacing the constitution temporarily.
Gen Z’s influence, however, will force more transparency, possibly greater inclusion of youth in party politics, maybe some legal reforms about accountability, but systemic change (direct executive election, constitutional overhaul) will take time, negotiations, and likely measurable sacrifice or compromise.
What to Watch For
To understand which path Nepal will follow, watch for these signals:
1. March 2026 Election Outcomes — if reform-minded or “Gen Z-aligned” parties win big, they may push more boldly for amendments.
2. Party manifestos — whether major parties include directly elected executive, governance reform, constitutional revision in their platforms.
3. All-Party or Consensus Committees — bodies formed post-election to discuss constitutional change; presence of youth, civil society.
4. Public opinion & mobilization — if Gen Z continues protesting or organizing, whether their demands remain central or are sidelined.
5. Judicial and constitutional expert opinions — whether courts weigh in on constitutionality of reforms.
Conclusion
Nepal is in a rare moment of possibility. The Gen Z movement has lit up debates that many previous generations carried in private: about how executive power should be structured; who it should be accountable to; how much change is constitutional, legal, or requires revolution.
A directly elected Prime Minister could redefine Nepal’s political system—but it requires legal foundation, constitutional amendment, strong electoral mandate, and buy-in from a fragmented party system. An interim constitution, while attractive to some, carries huge risks unless there’s wide agreement.
For now, the most realistic expectation is a period of reform proposals, strong youth influence, and careful navigation. The real test will be in the 2026 elections: whether the new representatives bring the courage, consensus, and vision needed to move Nepal closer to what many young people are demanding.
