Nepal appears to be in a state of transformation. Whether the voices raised from the streets win on the political stage or not, whether elections bring in new leadership or not, the context of what the country learns and what kind of structure it creates in both cases will have a long-term impact. Recent developments, calls for mass movements, citizen awareness, dissatisfaction with corruption, and political games between parties raise the question – can the current state structure, party system, and governance system build a democratic, transparent, and inclusive Nepal?

The general election scheduled for 21 Falgun has been interpreted by many as not only a political competition but also an opportunity for legal and institutional transformation.

In recent years, due to the continuous spread of corruption, unaccountability in the governance system, and political fatigue of the old parties, the younger generation, especially Gen-G, has raised its voice from the streets to the social platforms with the slogan of change. This movement of consciousness, which has spread from the Maitighar to the Singha Durbar, is not just an emotional expression, it is a demand for public participation and accountability in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution.

Article 2 of the Constitution grants ‘sovereignty’ to the people, and it has provided that all organs of the state are guided by that public power. However, past practices have shown that this core spirit of the Constitution is eroding in practice. The practice of repeatedly controlling the parliament by party interests, the dominance of individualism over policy in the operation of the government, and the misuse of constitutional bodies have created a deep imbalance in the democratic system of governance. Such a situation is contrary to the essence of the ‘accountable, transparent and people-oriented governance system’ mentioned in Article 51 of the Constitution.

The movement launched by the young generation is a reflection of the people’s direct intention towards the restructuring of Nepal’s democratic system from a legal perspective. According to Article 17 of the Constitution, which provides freedom of expression, assembly and association to citizens, the Gen-G movement is a civil exercise completely within the legal framework. When the people question the quality of governance, it is not just dissatisfaction, but also the exercise of constitutional rights.

Looking at the structure of political parties, the provisions related to party registration and operation are guided by the Political Parties Act, 2073. The purpose of the act is to ensure transparency and internal democracy within the parties. But in practice, the parties have turned into leadership-centered, hereditary and closed systems. This has damaged the essence of ‘internal democracy, transparency and financial accountability’ mentioned in Article 269(5) of the Constitution. This is why the new generation seems to be attracted to movements rather than parties.

The current system of government is a parliamentary republic, as detailed in Part 7 and Articles 75 to 85 of the Constitution. The system of selecting the Prime Minister by a parliamentary majority is the essence of democratic tradition, but past unstable governments and frequent political bargaining have not been able to provide the stability expected by the people.

In this context, the concept of a directly elected Prime Minister has come into discussion again. From a legal perspective, it has been pushed that a constitutional amendment is necessary to establish such a system. Because the current form of government in Nepal is parliamentary in nature. According to Article 274 of the Constitution, a two-thirds majority and the support of the provinces are required to change the governance structure. Therefore, the transformation towards a directly elected Prime Minister system is not just a political demand, it will be a process of deep legal restructuring.

Incidents of corruption are weakening the moral authority of state institutions. The Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority is provided for as a constitutional body to function independently and impartially according to Articles 238 and 239 of the Constitution. However, the political interference and culture of impunity seen in the functioning of the Commission have reduced its credibility.

Legally, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2059 (2002) has given great powers, but its implementation has been weakened by a lack of political will. In this context, the ‘anti-corruption watch’ raised by the Gen-G movement is a powerful form of legal citizen oversight.

The Constitution has given MPs a clear role as people’s representatives under Articles 84 and 85 – policy formulation, monitoring and budgetary control. But when Parliament is made executive-centric, the independence of people’s representatives is weakened. Running Parliament by the executive is a violation of democratic accountability.

According to Article 75(3) of the Constitution, the members of the Prime Minister’s Council are collectively accountable, but that principle has not been implemented in practice. Old political influences still survive in the administrative bodies of the state. The Constitution has ensured impartiality and efficiency of the civil service in Article 285, but partisan influence in appointments and transfers has weakened the constitutional spirit. Although there is a legal provision for the establishment of the Administrative Reforms Commission for this, its direct implementation is weak.

In terms of citizen and youth participation, the Constitution has guaranteed ‘inclusive participation in state bodies’ and ‘equal access to political rights’ under Article 42. The current Gen-G movement seems to have translated these rights into practice. When the political consciousness that has begun among the people turns towards institutional reform, it is a sign of democratic maturity.

The election on 21 Falgun is not legally just a process of government formation, but a platform for re-evaluation of the governance system. If the old power structure again gains a majority, there is a risk of legal, political pressure and control over the leaders of the movement. But if the citizens give priority to the reformist approach, this election will open the door to new political responsibility in line with the spirit of the Constitution.

The legal path to building a new Nepal is hidden in the very essence of the Constitution – people are supreme, separation of powers is clear, accountability is ensured, and transparency is mandatory. The legally necessary steps in the upcoming transition are: (1) ensuring internal democracy within the party by amending the Political Parties Act, (2) granting full autonomy to the Anti-Corruption Commission, (3) including a mechanism for direct citizen oversight in the Election Act, and (4) strengthening the balance between parliament and the executive.

The change has already begun. The voice raised in the Maitighar Mandal is legally the free expression of the people and that is the power of the constitution. What is needed now is harmony between that manpower and the legal structure. If legal and political institutions can accommodate the feelings of the people, this movement can translate the goal of ‘Nepal will be created now’ into practice. But if the old style of governance, balance of power, and unaccountability are repeated again, the essence of the constitution will be questioned again.