If we look closely at the background of the Gen-G movement, its original goal was not based on any concrete agenda regarding regime change or state structure. No matter how widespread social discontent and political distrust the movement took, the issue of establishing a direct executive system was not its formal and tangible agenda.

However, in the course of recent political changes and debates, this issue has surfaced and become the focus of debate, which can be considered as an important topic of future political discussion.

The issue of direct executive does not fall under the purview of the interim government. General clarity is needed on this. The concept of a direct executive system has been put forward by various parties in Nepal from time to time. In particular, the then Maoists, the Rastriya Prajatantra Party, and more recently the Rastriya Swatantra Party have been raising the issue of its justification and potential. However, this issue is not just a political slogan or a means of gaining power at the time, but a sensitive issue that needs to be analyzed from a deep ideological, constitutional, and historical perspective.

There is a need for adequate study and discussion about its potential impact in the context of Nepal's social structure, geopolitical location, and the balanced power structure of the state. One key aspect that our generation needs to understand is that in a country like Nepal, which is extremely diverse in terms of ethnicity, language, religion, culture, and geography, the direct executive system has a strong possibility of being politically counterproductive. Excessive centralization of power increases the risk of abuse of power and weakens democratic accountability. When all power 

is concentrated in a single person, such a person may rise to power on a wave of popularity, but he may hardly be able to show the political foresight, inclusive approach, and constitutional discipline required for running the state. Such a situation creates difficulties in addressing Nepal's multifaceted diversity in a balanced way. 

As far as corruption reduction is concerned, comparative studies of various countries show that corruption indicators are relatively high in countries that have adopted direct executive systems. The Philippines in Southeast Asia can be taken as a prime example, where the structure of the direct executive has not been able to maintain the necessary balance in controlling power.

Mainly, the theoretical concept of separation of powers and checks and balances is relatively weak in the direct executive system. For Nepal, it seems that finding new ways of reforming within the existing parliamentary system will be more beneficial in the long term. A system in which the executive is elected by parliament helps maintain both policy stability and political accountability.

For that, the parliament formed by the upcoming elections can make provision for setting a ‘two-term limit’ for the Prime Minister through a constitutional amendment. This will not only prevent the monopoly of governance, but will also encourage the entry of a new generation into leadership, which will also help institutionalize the historic achievements of the Gen-G movement.

Defining the geopolitical context as a challenge is actually a limited political perspective. When a country with geographical, cultural, and historical diversity like Nepal can clarify its diplomatic priorities and demonstrate self-reliant thinking and visionary political vision, geopolitics can become the foundation of prosperity, balance, and diplomatic stability.