In the 2020s, movements led by Gen Z—a demographic currently aged between 14 and 29—erupted across several countries, including Nepal. These movements have reflected a transnational wave of youth frustration, where digital platforms connected local grievances to global conversations about corruption, accountability, and political reform. Although they shared common themes, each movement was shaped by its own political context and national history.
In Nepal, the movement emerged in response to widespread corruption and increasing public dissatisfaction with political institutions and governance. Such frustrations were evident long before the recent Gen Z-led protests in Nepal. They appeared through literature, films, and songs, such as Balen Shah’s ‘Balidan’ (translated as ‘sacrifice’), which uses a rageful tone to discuss issues of infrastructure and corruption. Songs such as ‘Lutna Sake Lut’, released in 2019, portray corruption as a normalised feature of everyday life, with lyrics saying, ‘If you can loot, loot, little brother, loot while you can... It’s like looting isn’t a crime anymore. It’s just the system.’
Another key factor in the movement’s emergence was the use of digital spaces, particularly social media platforms, to facilitate conversations and connect youth in expressing collective demands that strengthened Nepal’s Gen Z movement.
This article is informed by the intersecting identities of two Nepali Gen Z students studying the social sciences in Canada. We offer a perspective shaped by both geographic distance and ongoing digital engagement with political developments in Nepal. Like many young members of the Nepali diaspora, we followed the movement through the same platforms that became central to organising protests, sharing information, and shaping public discussion. We explore these dynamics through a qualitative analysis of TikTok, X, and Facebook—three platforms selected for their widespread use and political significance. We argue that these platforms functioned as infrastructures of political mobilisation and narrative production, enabling a politics of hope that connected everyday experiences of inequality, nepotism, and state failure to demands for democratic reform.
When the feed became the forum
By fall 2025, political communication in Nepal had increasingly extended beyond parliament, newspapers, and television into digital platforms. Social media supported this development by connecting people across geographic boundaries and facilitating the exchange of ideas. The growing reach of these platforms is reflected in the nearly 15 per cent increase in reported social media use between 2023 and 2025. Platform-specific figures further illustrate this reach, with 14.3 million Facebook users, 3.9 million on Instagram, and nearly 400,000 on X in Nepal at the time of Nepal’s Gen Z mobilisation. These platforms became spaces for ordinary users to engage in public debate, enabling rapid information sharing and real-time documentation of corruption.
Digital engagement also facilitated coalition-building without dependence on a single representative figure. For instance, the Gen Z Movement Alliance brought together 13 Gen Z groups to build solidarity and advance shared demands. The Alliance connected young people with similar concerns and built momentum through its network of advocates. Its network included academics, political organisers, writers, and lawyers, whose diverse perspectives informed discussions of the movement’s direction and demands for accountability. Figures such as Miraj Dhungana, Rakshya Bam, and Tanuja Pandey also gained visibility through online advocacy, showing the movement’s diverse range of intersectional identities.
The challenges articulated by these alliances were rooted in the material conditions shaping young Nepalis’ lives. With youth comprising approximately 40 per cent of Nepal’s population, the challenges this generation faced, including unemployment, inadequate public infrastructure, and pressure to migrate for economic security, shaped their transition to adulthood. This led many to question why migration was necessary for stability while elites benefited from state resources.
These frustrations became part of a growing shared online discourse, frequently expressed through the hashtag: #NepoBabies. Initially used to critique children of elite families, the term expanded to capture broader concerns surrounding inherited privilege and structural inequality. Viral posts depicting elite lifestyles, including luxury travel, overseas education, and conspicuous consumption, became symbols of a widening wealth divide. Rather than opposing wealth itself, these discussions questioned how public funds shaped access to wealth and influence, as reflected in the comment above.
By early September 2025, these platforms had enabled users to articulate shared grievances and build networks for collective action. The government’s requirement for social media platforms to register with Nepali authorities and subsequent ban of those, therefore, did not sit right with a generation already relying on these services for information and political engagement. The restrictions were widely interpreted as attempts to limit criticism and public scrutiny of those in power, further fueling the protests.
From hashtag to headline: Youth reframe the movement
On 8 September, shortly after the government announced its ban on major social media platforms, Nepal’s Gen Z movement mobilised in the streets. Early interpretations of the protests often reduced the movement to a reaction against restrictions on digital access, framing young protesters as defending their ability to remain connected online. However, this interpretation overlooked the broader buildup of grievances that had shaped youth frustration.
During the movement’s critical 48-hour period, content circulated online reached both national and global audiences. Through videos, personal testimonies, and visual documentation, youth highlighted how governance failures and social inequalities were experienced in everyday life across Nepal. By centring lived experiences, these narratives transformed abstract concerns into visible realities, challenging institutional representations that often reduce social issues to statistics and indicators. As these accounts gained visibility, they also influenced media coverage. This shifted international perception of the movement from the initial social media ban to the deeper grievances driving public frustration.
Social media distinguished itself from traditional media sources by enabling protesters to communicate through youth vernacular, including slang, hashtags, visual imagery, and popular culture references. For instance, the word ‘flex’, shown in the image above, is a popular Gen Z slang that refers to showing off. In this context, youth use the term to suggest government officials can ‘flex’ because of tax money contributed by ordinary citizens. These forms of expression translated political demands into accessible messages that resonated with younger audiences, amplifying their engagement with politics.
The use of symbolic imagery exemplified these youth vernaculars. For instance, the One Piece flag, drawn from the globally recognised anime series, emerged as an emblem of resistance and collective identity among protesters. Within the series, the image represents a pirate crew that challenges oppressive authorities, lending it symbolic resonance with protesters’ calls for freedom and resistance. Its familiarity among Gen Z audiences allowed it to symbolise global solidarity, connecting Nepal’s movement to broader youth-led resistance.
Political change and its promises
While the protest raised significant demands, its aftermath has left Nepal in a period of uncertainty. This was not the first attempt to challenge established political structures in Nepal. However, the Gen Z movement represented a distinct form of political mobilisation. Unlike previous movements organised around conventional party divisions, ideological frameworks, or centralised leadership, this movement emerged through decentralised networks of youth participation. Digital platforms enabled all youth across Nepal with access to social media to exchange information, express shared concerns, and shape conversations about the country’s political future.
The movement contributed to a political realignment, reflected in the electoral success of Balendra Shah and the Rastriya Swatantra Party, which secured nearly a two-thirds majority in parliament. This marked a transformation in Nepal’s governing landscape. For years, national leadership had largely rotated among three dominant party figures, Sher Bahadur Deuba of the Nepali Congress, KP Sharma Oli of the CPN–UML, and Pushpa Kamal Dahal of the CPN–Maoist Centre. Each served multiple terms as prime minister, holding the position five, four, and three times, respectively. The election disrupted this recurring leadership cycle, creating space for new ideological frameworks in Nepali politics.
In response to the legitimacy crisis heightened by the movement, the new government introduced a comprehensive 100-point governance reform agenda following its first cabinet meeting. This agenda includes commitments to administrative restructuring, anti-corruption measures, judicial and systemic reform, and depoliticising the bureaucracy. It also prioritises digital service delivery and justice for victims of the Gen Z protests. To demonstrate commitment to the reform agenda, the government proposed reducing federal ministries from approximately 22 to 17 through departmental mergers.
Shah avoiding accountability
However, the demand for an accountable government has put young activists in conflict with the leaders they previously supported. The Gen Z Alliance has become a vocal critic of an administration that claims to represent their ideologies. Their criticism suggests that a change in government is not enough. Those in power must demonstrate the movement’s values by explaining decisions, responding to criticism, and respecting the limits of public office.
Prime Minister Shah’s approach to communication raises questions about whether digital visibility fulfils these obligations. Reporting points to frequent Facebook activity alongside limited engagement with parliament. His departure from parliament even as his own government’s agenda was being presented drew criticism, while a later parliamentary question-and-answer session denied lawmakers their usual opportunity to question the prime minister. These reports distinguish between hearing a leader’s opinions online and questioning their governance. Social media lets Shah control what and when he shares, while avoiding questions set by others.
The content and timing of his posts reinforce this concern. As displaced families faced poor shelter conditions, calls for Shah to respond circulated online and in the media. He remained silent while sharing mundane updates, including a post with a photograph of himself showcasing cheese from Nepal’s government-owned Dairy Development Corporation. Activists criticised these posts for diverting attention from unresolved suffering while questions about the government’s actions remained unanswered.
This becomes troubling when online humour accompanies state power. After a government secretary requested an ambassadorial appointment from Shah as a personal favour, police detained the former late at night for about seven hours. Shah mocked the request online, prompting ministers and lawmakers to join in. His post distracted viewers from questions about whether the detention had followed due process.
These developments illustrate the danger of ‘dashboard populism’, in which leaders treat likes, shares, and follower counts as evidence of public support. Such measures reward attention while overlooking citizens whose concerns attract little engagement. When popularity becomes proof of legitimacy, leaders can claim public support without answering criticism or participating in institutional debate.
Displacement amid weakened legal safeguards
For communities facing displacement, a responsive government is essential to protecting their homes and rights. In late April 2026, forced evictions displaced thousands across Kathmandu Valley. Some reportedly received only 24 hours’ notice. Nepal’s Constitution guarantees both housing rights and land provision for landless Dalits. Housing and land legislation gives these commitments practical effect through consultation, verification of landless status, adequate notice, and arrangements to prevent homelessness. Nonetheless, the government repealed verification provisions through an ordinance while evictions were underway, bypassing parliamentary deliberation and reducing procedural protections. On 8 May 2026, the Supreme Court prohibited further removals without due process and directed the authorities to meet displaced families’ basic needs. By then, extensive demolitions had been carried out. UN Special Rapporteurs subsequently criticised shelter conditions and requested an independent investigation into the evictions and two suspected suicides associated with them.
Military involvement also prompted debate over how the evictions were authorised and overseen. Reports documented armed soldiers accompanying Nepal Police during operations. Kathmandu’s Chief District Officer declined to comment, while his Bhaktapur counterpart described the Army’s role as monitoring possible unrest. These responses offered little clarification of the legal authority governing its involvement. Further, routine military participation in administrative affairs risks weakening civilian institutions and restricting civil liberties. Beyond the immediate consequences of displacement, these developments warrant closer examination of how constitutional protections are upheld under the current government.
Protecting participation beyond protest
The treatment of prominent public figures has raised concerns as well about the misuse of power. Journalist Kishor Shrestha was arrested for allegedly violating Nepal’s Privacy Act (2018) while working to expose information that could hold the government accountable. His arrest sparked debate about censorship, freedom of expression, and citizens’ rights.
This was followed by the detention of Majid Ansari, a prominent lawyer in the Gen Z movement. Ansari was detained following an altercation with authorities while visiting a site holding displaced people. He said that authorities provided neither a clear explanation nor documentation for his detention, raising further questions about due process and the government’s response to displacement.
The post-protest moment illustrates that political change cannot be reduced to leadership replacement, elections, or mass mobilisation. Transformation remains a contested process shaped by digital platforms, public institutions, and enduring structures of power. While the movement expanded opportunities for participation, sustaining change requires addressing the institutional and social inequalities that generated its demands.
Conclusion: One year later, the work that remains
One year after Nepal’s Gen Z protests, we reflect on how youth transformed frustration into collective demands for political change. Digital spaces connected people who had never met around shared aspirations for equality and fairness. Through youth vernaculars and symbolic imagery, participants expressed demands that resonated with their generation and shaped how political narratives circulated. The movement influenced public discourse, captured international attention, and strengthened connections among the youth globally. Viewed through the politics of hope, these relationships created opportunities to imagine a more just future and organise towards it.
However, recognising these successes requires acknowledging the remaining barriers to reform. Disputes over accountability, weakened legal safeguards, displacement, and press freedom highlight the importance of protecting rights under the new leadership. The same platforms that enable public criticism allow leaders to control attention and deflect difficult conversations. Nevertheless, young people continue to challenge those in power, including the leaders who claim to represent their demands. This engagement suggests that the movement’s significance extends beyond a single protest or leadership change, sustaining political dialogue and expectations of responsive government.
Understanding where this leaves Nepal requires recognising whose voices remain under-represented. While youth engagement in digital spaces continues, it is unclear how these networks will evolve into sustained political organisation or institutional influence. Demands collectively voiced online must inform institutional processes to produce lasting structural change.
This article challenges linear views of political change, showing how the Gen Z movement developed and continues to unfold. Transformations are shaped by structural constraints and struggles over power, requiring an understanding of how social change occurs and whose interests it serves. The hope generated through collective action remains tied to translating demands for fairness into lasting institutional practices and everyday protections.
