Nepal’s fury: Why autocrats should fear the people’s voice

In the shadow of the world’s highest mountain peaks, Nepal is witnessing a seismic shift as youth-led anti-corruption protests have forced Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli to resign, plunging the nation into uncertainty.

Beginning early September, the demonstrations, spearheaded by activists calling themselves 'Gen Z', have exposed the vulnerabilities of regimes that trample on democratic principles. With at least 19 protesters killed and hundreds injured in clashes with security forces, the unrest has not only toppled a government but also sent a sharp message to autocratic leaders worldwide.

As buildings burn and curfews are defied, Nepal’s crisis underscores a timeless truth: when the right to expression and dissent is suppressed, the people’s wrath can erase even the most entrenched powers.

Gen Z revolution ignites

The spark that ignited the Gen Z protests can be traced to simmering frustration over systemic corruption, nepotism, and economic inequality. Dubbed the ‘Nepo Kids’ movement by some, protesters have targeted what they see as a political elite that presides over a system where opportunities are hoarded by the well-connected.

Starting as peaceful gatherings in Kathmandu and other cities, the demonstrations quickly escalated after the government imposed a blanket ban on 26 social media platforms, including Facebook, YouTube, and WhatsApp, in a bid to curb organising efforts. This move, enacted on 7 September, was perceived as a direct assault on free expression, fuelling even greater outrage among digitally savvy youth who rely on these tools for mobilisation and information sharing.

By 8 September, the protests turned violent. Riot police fired tear gas, rubber bullets, and live ammunition at crowds outside the Parliament complex, resulting in 19 fatalities and over 300 injuries. Undeterred, demonstrators stormed key sites, setting fire to the Nepali Congress party headquarters, homes of prominent leaders, and even portions of the Singha Durbar or Parliament building.

Reports emerged of protesters breaking into Parliament, symbolising a direct reclamation of democratic spaces from those accused of betraying them. The government’s indefinite curfew in Kathmandu failed to quell the unrest, as thousands continued to flood the streets, chanting for mass resignations and systemic overhaul.

Oli’s resignation on Tuesday, 9 September, came amid this chaos, confirmed by his aides as protesters demanded accountability for corruption scandals that have plagued his administration. The ban on social media was swiftly lifted today as well, a tacit admission of its futility in an age where information spreads virally.

Yet, the movement’s leaders, many of them students in their late teens and early twenties, insist this is just the beginning. “We want mass resignations,” one injured protester told reporters, echoing calls for a complete purge of corrupt officials.

This uprising, organised largely through encrypted apps and underground networks, highlights how attempts to silence dissent in the digital era often backfire, amplifying voices rather than muting them.

Nepal’s legacy of democratic struggles

Nepal’s current turmoil is not an isolated event but part of a rich history of popular movements that have repeatedly challenged authoritarian rule. The nation’s journey toward democracy has been marked by three major revolutions over the past seven decades, each driven by the people’s demand for rights and representation. 

The first, in 1950-51, ended the century-long autocratic rule of the Rana oligarchy, a family dynasty that had reduced the monarchy to a figurehead while wielding absolute power. Sparked by exiled dissidents and inspired by India’s independence, the uprising led to the establishment of a multiparty system, though it was short-lived as King Tribhuvan consolidated control.

Four decades later, the 1990 People’s Movement (Jana Andolan I) reignited the fight against absolutism. Under the Panchayat system imposed by King Mahendra in 1960, which banned political parties and centralised power with the monarchy, dissent was ruthlessly suppressed. Protests erupted in February 1990, led by the Nepali Congress and communist factions, demanding multiparty democracy and constitutional reforms.

After weeks of strikes, marches, and clashes that claimed over 50 lives, King Birendra conceded, lifting the ban on parties and promulgating a new Constitution that transformed Nepal into a Constitutional monarchy. This victory underscored the power of unified dissent in dismantling entrenched autocracy.

The most transformative was the 2006 People’s Movement II (Jana Andolan II), which abolished the monarchy altogether. Triggered by King Gyanendra’s 2005 coup, where he dismissed Parliament and assumed direct rule amidst Maoist insurgency, the movement united seven political parties and the Maoists in a historic alliance.

Massive protests in April 2006, involving millions across the country, forced the king to reinstate Parliament and relinquish power. By 2008, Nepal declared itself a federal democratic republic, ending 240 years of monarchical rule. These historical uprisings demonstrate Nepal’s resilient spirit, where the right to expression — through protests, media, and assembly — has been the catalyst for change, even against overwhelming odds.

The perils of suppressing dissent

The events unfolding in Nepal offer profound lessons for autocratic regimes, illustrating how manipulating democratic institutions invites inevitable backlash. When leaders tamper with elections, align with industrialists at the expense of the public, or muzzle opposition, they erode the social contract that sustains their rule. Nepal’s latest protests, like those before them, reveal that such overreach awakens a dormant populace, transforming grievances into revolutionary force.

Parallels abound in the pages of history. In Sudan, the 2018-2019 uprising toppled Omar al-Bashir’s 30-year dictatorship. Sparked by economic hardships and bread price hikes, protests swelled into a nationwide movement demanding freedom and justice. Despite brutal crackdowns, including the Khartoum massacre that killed over 100, the military eventually ousted Bashir, leading to a transitional government. This fall of a long-time autocrat highlights how sustained dissent can fracture even the most fortified regimes.

The Arab Spring of 2010-2011 provides an even broader canvas. Beginning in Tunisia with Mohamed Bouazizi’s self-immolation protesting police corruption, the wave of uprisings spread to Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and beyond, toppling four dictators.

In Egypt, Hosni Mubarak’s regime crumbled after 18 days of Tahrir Square protests, where millions demanded an end to emergency laws, electoral fraud, and media censorship. Tunisia’s Zine El Abidine Ben Ali fled after 28 years in power, unable to contain the digital-fuelled mobilisation. These revolutions, amplified by social media, proved that suppressing expression — through internet blackouts or journalist arrests — only intensifies resolve.

Closer to Nepal, Sri Lanka’s 2022 Aragalaya movement forced President Gotabaya Rajapaksa into exile amid economic collapse and corruption allegations. Protesters occupied his residence, symbolising the reclamation of power from elites.

In Bangladesh, the 2024 student-led protests against Sheikh Hasina’s authoritarian grip on elections and opposition suppression culminated in her flight, with an interim government stepping in. These South Asian examples mirror Nepal’s trajectory, where youth-driven demands for transparency expose the fragility of autocratic facades.

Even in Europe, the 1989 Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia dismantled communist rule without violence, as mass demonstrations and strikes compelled the regime to yield to democratic reforms. Led by dissidents like Vaclav Havel, it emphasised the power of peaceful dissent.

Conversely, regimes that survive, like Belarus under Alexander Lukashenko post-2020 protests, do so through extreme repression, but at the cost of legitimacy and simmering unrest.

Right to expression and dissent

The vitality of a democracy hinges on the right to free expression and dissent. This allows societies to self-correct without descending into tyranny. In Nepal, the Gen Z protesters’ use of social media as a force multiplier — despite bans — exemplifies this, turning hashtags into rallying cries and videos into evidence of state abuse.

When governments like Oli’s attempt to black out platforms, they not only violate international human rights standards but also ignite greater solidarity, as seen in the rapid spread of protest footage globally.

Autocrats beware

As Nepal charts its post-Oli future, the world must absorb some lessons. Autocratic regimes in places like Venezuela, where Nicolas Maduro clings to power amid suppressed elections, or Iran, facing recurrent protests against theocratic rule, risk similar fates if they ignore the people’s voice.

The rise of digital activism means dissent can no longer be contained by borders or bans; it globalises struggles, drawing international scrutiny and support. Nepal’s fury reminds us that regimes that falsify narratives or sell out to elites are erased by the very people they claim to represent.

Hasnain Naqvi is a former member of the history faculty at St Xavier’s College, Mumbai. More of his writing can be found here