Nepali political history has long been told as a series of comforting myths: the 2006 peace agreement ended the armed conflict, the 2015 Constitution brought stability, and democratic consolidation would naturally follow. The events of 2025 shattered this illusion. The Gen-Z uprising, shocking in scale and tragic in outcome, revealed a harsh truth: Nepal has never truly had stable politics. For decades, the country has only survived brief periods between crises. In his essays, “A National Consensus for Nepali Strategic Stability” and “???????????? ??????? ? ?????????,” Dr. Surya Dhungel analyzes the roots of this instability with clarity and precision. He argues that Nepali constitutionalism remains stuck in a transitional mindset: institutions are weakened, public trust is declining, elite negotiations control governance, and the 2015 federal democratic republic has not yet been fully implemented. The unfinished transformation Dhungel points out is real and urgent.
Yet while Dr. Dhungel diagnoses institutional and procedural failures, a deeper layer remains underexplored: the philosophical misalignment between the constitution and the social, historical, and cultural realities of Nepali society. Nepali constitutional instability is not merely the result of weak implementation or elite self-interest; it stems from a fundamental mismatch between the imported frameworks of modern constitutionalism and the collective moral and cultural imagination of the Nepali people. The 2015 Constitution, like its predecessors, was designed to manage elite negotiations and satisfy external pressures rather than to root itself in the lived political culture of Nepalis. Its gaps are structural, not incidental, and cannot be fixed through incremental amendments or procedural changes alone.
The 2015 Constitution was celebrated with pomp, yet it carried inherent fragility from the start. It was morally weakened by unresolved grievances of the Madhes movement, politically rushed through exhausted party negotiations, and philosophically detached from Nepali social reality. Constitutional theorists from Rousseau to Ronald Dworkin emphasize that legitimacy comes not just from legal rigor but also from moral and cultural resonance. A constitution that does not mirror its people’s historical memory, shared values, and social philosophy may work temporarily but will ultimately face resistance and instability. The 2015 Constitution suffers from this exact weakness. Borrowing frameworks from liberal democracy and identity-based federalism, it was imposed on a society rooted in layered identities, collective traditions, and long-standing norms of governance and unity.
Dr. Dhungel emphasizes the signs of this misalignment: weak institutions, declining public trust, procedural improvisation, and ineffective implementation. These are genuinely urgent issues, yet they are symptoms of a more profound philosophical disconnect. Citizens do not rebel against laws they accept; they oppose laws that benefit elites and do not reflect their collective identity. The Gen-Z uprising of 2025—resulting in 76 deaths and thousands injured—was not a failure of youth activism; it was an unavoidable result of a system that had long prioritized elite preservation over public legitimacy. Peace maintained through fear, elite manipulation, or procedural loopholes is a fragile facade, and 2025 demonstrated that Nepali democracy cannot survive without philosophical coherence to support its constitutional design.
Nepal has been stuck in a state of constant “transition” since 1951. The 1951 Constitution was temporary; the 1959 Constitution quickly fell apart; the Panchayat Constitution depended on authoritarian enforcement; the 1990 Constitution was incomplete; the 2007 Interim Constitution was explicitly provisional; and the 2015 Constitution, praised as transformative, has proven to be fundamentally fragile. This pattern is not just a sign of political immaturity. It results from repeatedly imposing constitutional frameworks without rooting them in the Nepali people’s moral, social, and historical realities. Without this grounding, every procedural reform, coalition agreement, and election remains uncertain, short-lived, and prone to disruption.
Elections, Dr. Dhungel stresses, are vital for maintaining democracy. However, elections cannot solve the conflicts caused by philosophical differences. They rely on a system that is fundamentally incompatible with those differences. A car can’t move where no road exists; electoral systems can’t stabilize governments lacking legitimacy. Fragmented party politics, identity-driven federalism, and externally influenced institutions mean that elections alone cannot bring stability. The ongoing cycle of fragile coalitions, policy gridlock, and government collapses is not due to voters or parties but is a structural result of constitutional frameworks that do not align with Nepali society.
If Nepali democracy is to be stabilized, it must undergo what constitutional theorists call a constitutional re-settlement. This is not radicalism, nor is it regression. It is a democratic act of national self-determination: revisiting the foundational principles of governance, reaffirming legitimacy through consent, and ensuring that the constitution aligns with the social, cultural, and moral fabric of Nepali society. The most credible mechanism for such a re-settlement is a national referendum, offering citizens a clear choice: reaffirm the 2015 Constitution with necessary improvements or revert, with modifications, to the 1990 Constitution. This is not about monarchy versus republic; it is about philosophy, legitimacy, and the social covenant. The referendum allows the Nepali people to choose the constitutional framework that reflects their social and cultural identity.
A referendum does more than establish legitimacy; it rebuilds trust, absorbs generational shocks, and realigns institutional structures with social reality. Federalism, accountability measures, and governance frameworks then shift from being mere formalities to becoming natural expressions of civic life. The 2025 uprising showed that the current system cannot meet the demands of a politically aware youth. For example, a referendum could allow citizens to redraw federal boundaries that more accurately reflect local identities. It offers a route to constitutional legitimacy that generations of elite negotiation, international pressure, and temporary arrangements have failed to achieve.
This approach complements Dr. Dhungel’s work. His essays reveal institutional fragility, procedural failures, and the ethical imperatives for reform. A philosophical reset, implemented through a referendum, offers a clear and ethically consistent way to address the crises he highlights. In 2025, Nepali citizens were compelled to act outside the constitutional framework to assert their rights. This is not a critique of democracy; it is a critique of a constitution that never fully earned the consent of those it governed.
Nepal’s future depends on the political class recognizing that elections and technical fixes alone cannot bring stability. Only a constitution rooted in social philosophy, cultural memory, and collective consensus can establish sustainable governance. Such a constitution would embody Nepali civilizational continuity, collective psychological outlook, and practical federal functionality. It would emphasize accountability and inclusion while maintaining social cohesion. It would enable citizens to personally relate to the framework shaping their political and social lives, making sure it reflects their social and cultural realities.
The referendum is therefore not an optional measure; it is a necessary correction. It demonstrates a willingness to restore sovereignty to its rightful source: the people. It enables legitimacy to develop naturally rather than through elite bargaining or external pressures. It changes the constitution from a document forced upon society into a social covenant recognized and accepted by society itself.
Dr. Dhungel has provided the diagnosis; the referendum offers the cure. His essays clearly show that Nepali democracy is still unfinished and fragile. Supporting his analysis, the referendum argument creates a path for philosophical clarity, cultural connection, and lasting legitimacy. Without this realignment, future generations of Nepali youth will keep facing the same systemic issues, and the cycle of protest, violence, and temporary governance will continue.
Nepal now stands at a historic crossroads. The youth have awakened civic consciousness to an unprecedented level, and scholars like Dr. Dhungel have explained why the system struggles. What remains is the courage to let the people define the philosophical identity of their state. A referendum on the constitutional foundation provides an opportunity to move beyond endless transition toward a democracy that is legitimate, coherent, and resilient.
If Nepali leaders seize this moment, the country can finally establish a constitution that is philosophically coherent, socially grounded, and morally legitimate. Such a constitution will not promise a utopia free of crises but will offer the ethical and structural resilience to absorb shocks, sustain governance, and foster credible institutions. Only then can Nepal move from the illusion of peace to the reality of durable democratic governance, completing the unfinished transformation Dr. Dhungel identifies.
Ultimately, Nepali democracy requires more than procedural amendments or elite-led adjustments. It involves restoring the social contract at its deepest level: a constitution chosen, recognized, and internalized by the people. Only when citizens can see themselves in the document that governs them will Nepali democracy break free from its cycle of instability and move into an era of credible, sustainable governance. A referendum is the mechanism that enables this, transforming transitional constitutionalism into a constitution philosophically aligned with the Nepali people.
Nepal’s moment of reckoning has arrived. The question is no longer whether the political class is willing to govern within the 2015 framework, but whether it dares to let the people decide the foundation upon which governance must rest. Only a constitution endorsed by the people themselves can ensure lasting stability, legitimacy, and peace. Until that moment comes, Nepali democracy remains a house built on a crack—beautiful in appearance, yet unstable at its core.
Author Subedi is a professor of Medical Sociology at Miami University, USA
@desh sanchar
