The creator's creativity is the basic foundation of literary creation, but the creator does not write in a blank imaginary world. Rather, he stands in the geographical, social, and cultural environment in which he lives and puts his life experiences into words. A combination of these is George Orwell's satirical novel 'Animal Farm', in which there is a great rebellion of animals.

‘Animal Farm’ is actually a manor farm, owned by a man named Jones. One day, an old pig named Major tells us that he had a strange dream of a time without humans.

He dies three days later after calling for the animals to revolt against opportunistic, consumerist, and unjust humans. Influenced by his ideas, the animals rebel and attack the owner, Jones, his family, and all his associates, and the farm is taken over by the animals themselves. After escaping from human rule, the animals adopt animalism.

All the movements to change the system in Nepali politics can be compared to the animal-led rebellion to some extent. The pre-movement system can be considered to be represented by the human class in the novel. The things that are said, written, or included in the constitution after each movement can be considered as the seven articles of animalism.

If we look at the list of fundamental rights obtained after the movement, we can also see a similar sweetness. In our perspective, the nature of the leadership in the latest movement is also found to be very close to the character structure of Napoleon and Snowball in terms of tendency and situational balance. The mismatch between our political parties over time is similar to the differences of opinion between these two pigs on every issue. The mood of Jones returning is similar to the leaders' occasional threats of 'returning to monarchy'. 

At the beginning of the Gen-G movement, one type of leader was seen. However, after the movement ended, a different type of person was seen as the leader. Who will be the leader? The fight over who to consider as the leader led to political and agenda-based negotiations and agreements with the state.

Recently, an agreement has been signed between the government and Gen-G. In fact, since the leader was not identified in advance, the movement became huge with the participation of young leaders, activists, and independent youth from all political parties. This movement was able to maintain its influence because it did not have a leader. However, it was not able to save the achievements and protect public properties such as Singha Durbar, Baneshwor, Supreme Court, etc. Although the Gen-G group called for a peaceful movement, various groups intervened. In addition, groups operated by some anarchist groups were seen inciting riots, vandalism, and arson. It can be assumed that there were some groups who came out with the intention of burning party offices, leaders' houses, and government structures wearing masks and carrying petrol and diesel bottles.

The main mandate of the government formed after the exit of the then Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli is to hold elections to the House of Representatives within six months. The actions and attitude of the government formed under the auspices of the Gen-G movement have raised both hopes and doubts. Although the government is focused on election preparations, various opinions are coming from the Gen-G leaders regarding the elections. The Gen-G group is also protesting from time to time with various demands.

Citizens expected complete rule of law from the government led by the former Chief Justice. However, some of the government's decisions were overturned by court orders. The Supreme Court's decision to dismiss Energy Minister Kulman Ghising's decision to remove Hitendradev Shakya, Executive Director of the Nepal Electricity Authority, as 'vindictive and arbitrary' has raised questions about the government's intentions.

When evaluating the interim government, it is necessary to distinguish between structural compulsion and political intent. It is one thing to be unable to exercise powers not granted by the constitution, but it is another thing to be unwilling to show transparency, accountability, and moral clarity. Failure to understand this difference risks leading to directionless criticism of the government. The failure to disclose the assets of the Prime Minister and ministers has made it seem that this government is not a product of the old trend.

When observing the activities of the governments formed after the Gen-G movement, it seems that a narrative is being created that only one generation should be decisive and dominant in the current Nepali politics and the overall governance system, and that only the interests of that generation should be given priority. While a country that has adopted a multi-party democracy should move forward in an inclusive manner, embracing all classes, communities, castes, religions, genders, and generational diversity, recent political trends seem to be gradually becoming generation-centric.

When political practices are carried out in a way that ignores or humiliates sacrifices, sacrifices, and historical background, it not only raises questions about democratic values, but also has a profound impact on the environment and public trust in the upcoming elections.

The government's success is not just in holding elections technically, but also in strengthening democratic institutions and establishing the rule of law. The government must take drastic steps to create an environment for elections and correct the weaknesses seen in the issue of good governance.

This government is not in a position to do the work of imprisoning leaders and immediately introducing a system of a direct executive president, as has been voiced at the public level. The parliament that will come to power after increasing the number of seats as required in the elections to be held on Falgun 21 can amend the constitution. But here, there is a voice that leaders should be imprisoned overnight. Such an issue is not in the government's 'mandate'.

Now the Gen-G movement and the government formed from it must present a clear roadmap for reform before criticism. Long-term change is not possible without defining the process of leadership selection, the decision-making mechanism of the movement, the legal avenues for reform within constitutional limits, and a clear scope of work for the interim government. Institutionalizing the movement is the biggest test at the moment.

Ultimately, the purpose of the Gen-G movement has been thwarted by deviations, leadership struggles, and institutional weaknesses. The rule of law, a clear agenda, and strong democratic institutions are indispensable for building a democratic society.