Statistics show that the Gen-G age group accounts for about one-third of Nepal's total population, and their combined number is estimated to be more than 50 million, which is more than half of the total number of voters.

In fact, two types of news stories gained special prominence before and after the Bhadra 23 and 24 protests targeting one-third of the country's population. Before the protests, there was a trend of generalizing and deifying this age group. The trend of praising and cheering on the Gen-G generation dominated. After the protests, news about the Gen-G generation continued to come in connection with criminal activities. 

Both the deification and criminalization of Gen-Gs are short-sightedness of the generalization of an entire generation. The root cause of the current inability to identify and address the Gen-G group and its diverse agenda is the generalization of all Gen-Gs without understanding. 

In the past few years, this trend has generalized an entire generation and interpreted it as a symbol of hope, progress, and digital empowerment. It has emerged as the originator of a new type of active and digitally participatory culture with creativity, confidence, and the ability to raise public opinion through online means. However, this generalization has completely ignored the fact that even within a certain age group, there may be different geographical, cultural, economic, social, etc. backgrounds, ideologies, thoughts, identities and understandings. Therefore, the generalization and deification of Gen-G on the one hand became an effective catalyst for exacerbating the movement, while on the other hand, it separated the group from various dimensions of identity.

This generalization gave great strength to the movement, but the sad thing is that the conclusion of what the movement was for, who it was for and what results it was leading to has not yet been reached. Not only that, but whose movement was the real movement, who will take credit for it and who will be responsible for the destruction that accompanied the movement - all these questions are still unanswered.

In such a situation, it is natural for different Gen-G groups to come up with conflicting demands and agendas. This has created further confusion, and the plurality and internal contradictions within Gen-G are once again giving traditional political forces a chance to play. Overall, the question remains as to what exactly was the cause of all this damage and destruction. There is still no specific basis for the country and politics to move towards long-term good governance. So, was the Gen-G movement unnecessary? But, it is not.

Gen-G movement: A supplementary movement 

A responsible movement with a concrete agenda was needed against the misrule, instability, and corruption caused by traditional political forces. This movement, carried out in the name of a specific age group without a concrete agenda and identity, succeeded in overthrowing the old political forces, but it could not provide new achievements compared to the specific damage.

In this sense, the Gen-G movement cannot be considered a specific movement. Rather, this movement, which suddenly came to fulfill the need for a movement at a time when there was a clear need for a movement, should be seen as a supplementary movement. 

And the current caretaker government formed on the basis of this movement is also a supplementary government, which has only a very minimal role. For example, holding elections on Falgun 21 and conducting a fair investigation of the movement. And, the main task of this government is to hold elections on time and form a new government accountable to the people through a new public opinion.

Therefore, the current government formed to fill the gap (gap) of the government for the time being is only a supplementary government, just as the Gen-G movement without an agenda and direction is not a real movement but only a supplement to the movement. Jean-Jacques Rousseau has probably mentioned the issue of supplements for the first time in his book Confessions. He has called it ‘that dangerous supplement’ and has declared it harmful.

Rousseau has put forward his own argument for declaring supplements ‘dangerous’. For example, he says – negativity is always presented as a supplement, while supplements are always operated by someone else. And supplements are that subject that neither nature can tolerate nor conscience can accept. And this ‘dangerous supplement’, which Rousseau also calls ‘fatal gain’, is naturally seductive. And this dangerous complement destroys the forces and experiences that nature has gradually built and accumulated spontaneously very quickly.

The complement goes beyond the spontaneous rhythm. Looking at the Gen-G movement with Rousseau's concept of complement, some clear patterns can be found. For example, Gen-G himself is unaware of which groups and sections infiltrated and wreaked havoc in the spontaneous movement started by Gen-G. And it is also seen that the entire hand and role in the movement was not Gen-G's, but that many other interest groups.

Of course, this movement was not only natural or spontaneous, but also motivating and seductive. This movement, which sidelined the old political forces, became even more counterproductive and almost created a crisis on the current constitution and system. In this sense, this complementary movement also seems like a 'fatal benefit'.

In fact, the current government is under pressure from various Gen-G groups carrying different contradictory demands. This is also not free and natural. It has no specific mandate other than holding fair elections. It has no authority and legitimacy. In this sense, there is nothing much to be expected from the supplementary government formed after the supplementary movement. Even after this, the achievements we will get will be negligible. Because it will also form another elected parliament and government through elections. If this is the only reason, why all this destruction and discord? This question is also unanswered.

Jacques Derrida has further advanced Rousseau's idea with a critical perspective regarding the supplementary. According to Derrida, the supplementary fills the gap between complete absence and complete presence. However, the supplementary itself is never complete. It keeps asking for more and more supplementary in a sequential manner. Just as this supplementary government does not have the authority to do specific things for long-term good governance and reform.

For that, we need a specific elected government after Falgun. However, this does not mean that the 'supplementary' is inferior to what is considered 'special'. According to Derrida, the complement is not just an addition or addition to the ‘original’, but rather another ‘special’ with the power to replace it. In this sense, the previous popularly elected government was certainly not more efficient than this complementary government, it was full of infinite weaknesses. That is why it was replaced in an unnatural way. 

The real problem lies here – there is no guarantee that the popularly elected omnipotent ‘special government’ formed by this complementary government after the election will also be more efficient or efficient. In this country, we have been experiencing such changes of ‘complementary’ and ‘original’ governments for a long time. 

In particular, for progressive reforms and changes, additional movements and awareness programs with additional agendas are needed in addition to the previous complementary Gen-G movements. The sooner these two complementary Gen-G movements and the complementary government cannot play their easy and clear role, the longer the political and constitutional crisis may be prolonged. And, these complements themselves may cause even bigger problems. Both of these may prove to be dangerous complements.

A paradox is clearly visible here. Different groups of Gen-G are putting pressure on the government with different demands. Another complication is that it is never possible to distinguish which demands are Gen-G and which are not, or which groups are official agitators Gen-G and which are not. Gen-G is not and cannot be a responsible political group with a specific agenda. Moreover, it is more of an aggregate of the identities of people born within a specific time frame than a specific age group. 

Aggregation of that deadly Gen-G

The term ‘Gen-G’, used for people born between the mid-1990s and the early 2010s, was originally born in the language of Western sociology and market or consumer culture. However, although it may seem normal and neutral at first glance, it also hides the dangerous politics of naming an entire generation. Generational classification, in particular, is a tool for understanding their consumer behavior, cultural tendencies, and political views.

Gradually, this ‘generational classification’ began to function as a means of creating and controlling people’s identities. It attempted to confine diverse social, economic, and geographical experiences under a single label. This nomenclature served not only sociological but also commercial purposes by transforming ‘Gen-G’ into a market segment.

Large companies, advertisers, and governments use this term to study consumption behavior, predict future trends, and transform the desires and discontents of youth into marketable goods. In this way, youth identity is merged with consumer identity, rebellion is transformed into a ‘brand’, and ‘naturalness’ is marketed. And, issues related to inequality, ethnicity, and power are overshadowed.

Similarly, when the term ‘Gen-G’ is used without review in societies like South Asia or Africa, it ignores the historical, economic, and linguistic diversity there. Because in many places, internet access, class inequality, or political instability also make the experience of youth different. The practice of labeling an entire age group as ‘Gen-Z’ sometimes seems to be akin to fascist thinking, as this single identity is used to control the independent thinking, diversity, and imagination of the youth.

In Nepal, the concept of ‘Gen-Z’ is no longer a diversity of youth, but a controllable symbol that ignores differences of class, caste, gender, and geography. The very nature of fascism focuses on uniformity and control. Their multifaceted identities and existence are ignored. Therefore, generalizing ‘Gen-Z’ is not just a sociological classification, it is also an epistemological violence. 

Overall, the Gen-Z movement in Nepal’s politics has become nothing more than a ‘dangerous complement’. It has challenged the old, shabby political structure by fulfilling the needs of the movement to some extent, but instead of providing a solution, it has the potential to cause greater instability. Its ‘side effects’ in the political and social environment are also likely to be equally devastating.