Gen Z Mentors Should Quit Playing the Cult Politics of the Past in Favor of a United Front. The question is not whether the Gen Z generation should take the mantle — but whether they can work together to earn it.

Dr. Alok K. Bohara
Prelude
Benjamin Franklin’s remark during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 on the preservation of liberty is often paraphrased as, “A republic — if you can keep it.” It aptly reflects what has just happened in Nepal, where the forebearers of the Republic came perilously close to seeing it slip away as the country plunged into a leadership vacuum for four days following the Gen Z unrest.
At least for now, the “mantle” has been temporarily freed from the grip of capture politics of three decades — thanks to the Gen Z movement and their sacrifices. The question now before the well-wishers, mentors, and aspiring new politicians is this: can you take the mantle¿
Not if you fall back into splintered, personality-driven politics — and fail to come together under a united front. The problem was not the protest itself, but what it revealed —the institutional guardrails that failed.
The Moment of Reckoning
Everyone is asking of Gen Z — what next, now that the structure of collusion politics has fallen with the dissolution of the House¿ It is indeed a big victory for the spirit of the Gen Z movement, as everyone is now asked to seek a new mandate from the citizen. Internal turmoil and leadership challenges within each party are also a testament to that effect — a sign of constructive destruction, perhaps.
And yet, the only logical step would be to fill the vacant space with their electoral challenge. This is where the real test lies: will the new Gen Z forces, including their well-wishers and mentors, come together, organize, and put up a united front to dislodge the old order and take the mantle¿
Not if they remain disorganized, scattered, disillusioned — and above all, trapped in the same culture of cult politics instead of collaboration. The mantle, if transferred successfully into the hands of the new revolutionaries, can finally help Nepal land on the much-eluded middle corridor of liberal democracy.
Yes, we know — there is much riding on this, and the expectations of the people after the rather costly uprising are very high. In this essay, we will look at how the torch meant to light the middle corridor was taken and passed down the line over the last three decades — and how, each time, it failed to land where it was supposed to: in the middle corridor of liberal democracy, away from both despotism and fragmentation.
This moment, therefore, demands not a messiah but a mechanism — a set of institutional scaffolds strong enough to withstand future crises and tumultuous outbursts.
To understand this, let us look at the past three decades of our democratic experiment and how it handled the hard-earned mantle of liberty.
The Passing of the Mantle
When Girija Prasad Koirala took the mantle from King Birendra in 1990, Nepal entered a new era of multiparty democracy. His role in steering that transition and institutionalizing the new order remains undeniable. Yet, as he consolidated power and navigated the turbulent early years of democracy, the party began to fracture from within. The democracy he fought for never fully addressed the deeper questions of inclusion, minority rights, and economic equality and access, nor did the fruits of that struggle reach the hopeful citizens. Over time, a strong concentration of authority in his hands created discontent within the party and beyond. Despite his historic contribution, the system he helped build gradually slipped into a culture of corruption, patronage, and factionalism — cementing what later became a model of the extraction–control nexus. A feudal style of democratic order took root, while the promise of a liberal democracy remained largely unfulfilled.
Then came Prachanda, waging an insurgency for ethnic rights and for social, economic, and political equality and access. A decade later, he succeeded in taking the mantle from Girija and became prime minister. But what many consider his ambition to capture the state and the army quickly failed, as the resolute President Ram Baran Yadav stood firm. Republicanism and a new constitution followed, where a proportional system gave many smaller voices space in both government and parliament.
The scenario became clear that no single party or leader could grab power alone — they had to share it with other smaller parties. Then the three leaders — Deuba, Prachanda, and Oli — devised a collusive system and began taking turns capturing power, virtually abdicating any meaningful opposition role in parliament — a basic tenet of a healthy democratic system. The middle corridor of liberal democracy was never given a chance to take hold; instead, a feudal, capture-driven democracy thrived.
In all of these maneuverings, everything began to be divided three ways, including all major posts in the government, academic institutions, judicial bodies, and anti-corruption agencies. A collusive political Leviathan had emerged, even as the federal democratic order was in full swing.
The mantle now changed hands among the three. The very essence and hope of the people in 1990 — and a decade later — of building a middle corridor of democracy remained unrealized. The mantle that was passed on from Birendra to Girija, to Prachanda, and then to the three — Deuba, Prachanda, and Oli — was never planted in that middle corridor. The question now is whether the Gen Z spirit can take that mantle and begin the long-overdue task of building the middle corridor of democracy.
The Gen Z Dilemma
As of this moment, there are seventeen new parties registered for the upcoming election. But the cautionary tale people are watching is how the elevated personalities of the Gen Z’s aspirational landscape are going to enter this drama — Rabi, Balen, Kulman, and some of the side players like Sagar Dhakal, Suman Shrestha, and even Sudan Gurung. There are also a few enclaves of Gen Z themselves positioning on the field.
Given the social media chatter, side talks, and the bravado-filled, grandiose online posturing, the signs are not encouraging. Instead of a united front under one umbrella, the emerging trend looks more like ego-driven splashes for momentary fame than selfless acts of purposeful alliance. Harka Sampang’s quick party registration — and similar moves by others in the Gen Z circle — are not signs of a unifying arc but rather a craving for individual political space. At least, many wonder!
Lessons from Other Transitions
If the history and experience of other countries are of any help, Nepal’s new generation should take lessons from the post–Soviet Union transformations that unfolded around the same time as its own democratic transition in the 1990s. Countries like Poland, Estonia, as well as the Czech Republic and Slovenia, after some struggle, managed to build essential institutional guardrails, market reforms, and transparency — and are still following a vigilant approach to their democratic paths.
In contrast, a country like Ukraine took the path of chaos, corruption, and eventual collapse, while Russia followed the despotic route. As noted in my recent essay — and closer to home — Sri Lanka’s example offers a useful lesson. When its political crisis reached a breaking point, the reformist and opposition forces banded together under a unified platform, rebranding themselves into a more conventional social-democrat–style alliance. Through this pragmatic repositioning, they formed a broad coalition that ultimately defeated the entrenched regime and broke the Rajapaksa family’s long grip on power.
Will the players of post–Gen Z Nepal pause, look around, and embrace such lessons — or keep marching on in search of limelight and momentary fame¿

The Moral Call

As we have often heard the popular phrase — an alternative to democracy is more democracy — it remains as true today as it was decades ago when Winston Churchill so eloquently articulated that sentiment.
The mantle of the nation has been taken away from the old guards — at least momentarily — but the question is whether the new emerging forces, with the Gen Z spirit, can organize themselves and take it back. It is there for them to take, or at least to be part of the team holding it — but only if they are willing to let go of their egos and rally behind a common goal: to defeat the old guards, take the mantle, and plant it squarely on the middle corridor.
Many capable leaders failed or chose not to do so, and what emerged instead was a feudal order disguised in the cloak of democracy. Will the new generation rise to the occasion and grab that mantle through collective effort — or lust for it in anticipation of personal glory and fame¿