Spread the love

By Our Reporter

The 10-point agreement between the interim government and representatives of the Gen Z movement has come up with a problem- that no one seems sure what lies ahead. From the start, the deal looked rushed. There was little sign that either side had mapped out how the promises would turn into action. The agreement became news mainly as official recognition of Gen Z as a political force, not as a clear plan to fix deep rooted problems.

Implementation remains the weakest link. Several points in the deal, especially those linked to constitutional amendment, sit far beyond the reach of an interim government and loosely organized Gen Z representatives. Even if both sides push together, they lack the authority to deliver. Without buy in from established political parties, these commitments stay confined to paper. Time is another constraint. With elections set for March 5 and barely three months left, the government has little space to do more than a few procedural steps. Big promises made in a short window often fade once the calendar turns.

The country has seen many agreements signed under pressure and quietly sidelined later. Deals with CK Raut and the Netra Bikram Chand led group followed that path. Even parts of the peace agreement and understandings with Madhesh based forces remain unresolved. Gen Z leaders knew this history. That is why they earlier pushed for a tripartite agreement involving the government, major parties, and themselves, under the president’s watch. That idea gained some traction, and talks did take place. Leaving parties out of the final deal, or not even keeping them as witnesses, weakened its standing from day one.

Some commitments did not need prolonged talks at all. Relief for protesters, action against excesses during the crackdown, and visible steps against corruption could have come soon after the new government took charge. Delay created the sense that the state was unsure of its own intent. The proposal to form a constitutional amendment suggestion commission adds another layer of confusion. It raises expectations that the interim setup cannot meet. A future parliament can amend the constitution, but only with a two thirds majority. Unless Gen Z aligned forces emerge strong from the election, such a commission risks becoming a token body. That gap between promise and power can easily trigger fresh anger.

That anger is already visible within the Gen Z space itself. A section of Gen Z that supports restoring monarchy feels sidelined. For them, the silence on monarchy in the agreement is not accidental. They see it as a quiet endorsement of the republican order they reject. This has created a split within a movement that was never uniform to begin with. Some wanted institutional reform within the system. Others wanted a reset that included monarchy and a Hindu state. By avoiding the monarchy question altogether, the deal pleased neither side fully. It reassured mainstream parties while frustrating royalist youth who had also been on the streets.

Political parties, meanwhile, see the agreement as overreach. The fall of the Oli led government, the appointment of Sushila Karki, and the dissolution of the House were already viewed with suspicion. Calling the protest a people’s movement only deepened that unease. Leaders from UML, Congress, and other parties argue that an interim government formed to conduct elections has no mandate to commit future parliaments. Their message is blunt. Real change must pass through elections and numbers in the House.

The 10-point deal now sits in a narrow space between hope and overstatement. It acknowledged public frustration, but it also exposed the limits of street driven bargaining. Without wider political ownership and clearer sequencing, it risks becoming another document that speaks loudly at birth and quietly disappears later.