Nepal's modern history has unfolded as a series of unfinished revolutions, dramatic ruptures that promised transformation but left the deeper questions of governance unresolved. The monarchy’s fall, the Maoist People’s War, and the republican transition all reshaped the country’s political order without stabilising its institutions.
The resignation of Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli on September 9 adds yet another chapter to this turbulent saga. Oli, who came to power on promises of nationalism and stability, departs under the weight of broken coalitions, corruption scandals, and popular disillusionment. His fall leaves behind a fractured polity at a moment when Nepal can least afford it.
Into this vacuum steps Sushila Karki, former Chief Justice and an unlikely political leader, appointed interim Prime Minister. Her arrival marks a turning point, not because it guarantees resolution, but because it reopens the debate about what Nepal’s democracy should stand for.
The symbolism of Sushila Karki
Karki is no ordinary figure in Nepal's public life. In 2016, she made history as the country's first female Chief Justice, renowned for her uncompromising independence and fearless judgments. At a time when the executive often sought to bend the judiciary, she stood firm, making both admirers and enemies in the process.
Nearly a decade later, her appointment as Prime Minister carries a rare symbolism. It signals a turn toward moral legitimacy at a time when traditional political actors have exhausted public trust. Civil society, students, and women's groups see in her elevation not just a procedural necessity but a moment of reclamation: the return of integrity to the state.
Her intellectual lineage adds another layer of resonance. Like several of Nepal’s former Prime Ministers, she is an alumna of Banaras Hindu University (BHU), tying her to a South Asian tradition of political leadership nurtured in Varanasi. That shared history with the likes of BP Koirala and Krishna Prasad Bhattarai offers both continuity and symbolism, linking her appointment to a longer story of democratic aspiration.
Why Oli fell
KP Sharma Oli's resignation was the inevitable outcome of years of political mismanagement. The leftist unity that brought him to power in 2018 quickly collapsed under his domineering leadership, while his centralisation of authority alienated coalition partners and weakened parliamentary culture. His repeated clashes with the judiciary, including two unconstitutional dissolutions of Parliament in 2020, eroded institutional balance.
Oli also failed to address long-standing grievances in the Madhes and among other marginalised groups, deepening regional discontent. Meanwhile, corruption allegations steadily corroded his credibility. By 2025, he had lost both public trust and political support. His fall was not a personal choice but the system's rejection of a leader who had exhausted its tolerance.
The larger pattern of incomplete transitions
Nepal's present turmoil can only be understood against the backdrop of its unfinished political transitions. The end of Rana rule in 1951 promised democracy but left the monarchy dominant. King Mahendra's 1960 coup replaced parties with the Panchayat system, an authoritarian façade that lasted three decades.
The 1990 People's Movement restored multiparty democracy, but factionalism and corruption soon eroded public faith. From this disillusionment arose the Maoist insurgency (1996–2006), which cost more than 17,000 lives and ended with the monarchy’s abolition. Yet the peace that followed left deep questions of justice unresolved.
In 2008, Nepal became a republic, but repeated failures to draft a constitution delayed stability until 2015. Even then, disputes over federal boundaries, citizenship, and inclusion ensured that cynicism persisted.
Against this history of incomplete revolutions, Karki's rise is not an anomaly but another attempt to redeem the democratic promises Nepal has long struggled to fulfill.
The challenges before Karki
Despite the optimism surrounding her appointment, Karki inherits an unenviable task. She steps into office at a moment when Nepal's Parliament is deeply fragmented, with no single party commanding a clear majority. As head of an interim government, her challenge will be to navigate these divisions while resisting efforts by partisan forces to capture her administration for their own ends.
Her most urgent responsibility lies in charting an electoral roadmap. The credibility of the March 2026 polls will define both her legacy and Nepal's immediate stability. Memories of past manipulations and disputed outcomes still haunt the electorate, making transparency and fairness critical if public trust in democracy is to be restored.
Another delicate test will be institutional. As a former Chief Justice, Karki now governs from the other side of the constitutional divide. The transition from judicial independence to executive responsibility demands careful respect for boundaries, lest her impartial image be compromised in the political fray.
She must also contend with the country’s unresolved social fault lines. Madhesi, Janajati, and Dalit grievances remain largely unmet, and any interim government that sidelines these demands risks igniting new waves of unrest. For Karki, symbolic inclusion may not suffice, her administration must show a willingness to listen, even if it cannot deliver sweeping reforms within a limited mandate.
Finally, Nepal's economic fragility looms large. Tourism, remittances, and agriculture, the country's lifelines, are highly vulnerable to political shocks. Investor confidence has already been shaken by months of unrest, and even modest steps to reassure domestic and international stakeholders could determine whether recovery is possible.
Karki cannot hope to resolve all these issues in her brief tenure. Yet her stewardship can set the tone for what follows, offering either a fragile bridge to stability or a prelude to further disillusionment.
Cautious optimism
The public response to Karki's appointment has been marked by a cautious optimism. Many citizens, weary of corruption and political gamesmanship, welcome the symbolism of a figure seen as upright and untainted by party machinery. Civil society sees in her a chance to reclaim lost moral ground.
Yet there is also realism. An interim Prime Minister cannot remake Nepal's political order. Her role is transitional, preparing the ground for elections rather than offering a vision for long-term governance. If her tenure becomes mired in political bargaining, the optimism may evaporate quickly.
A South Asian perspective
Nepal's crisis cannot be read in isolation. Across South Asia, democracies face the twin pressures of populism and institutional fragility. From Bangladesh's disputed elections to Pakistan's military entanglements and Sri Lanka's economic collapse, the region illustrates how fragile democratic experiments can be.
Karki's appointment represents a counter-narrative: the possibility that credibility and moral authority, rather than populism, can offer a way forward. Whether this experiment succeeds or not will resonate beyond Nepal’s borders.
The way forward
Nepal's immediate future hinges less on personalities than on the strength of its institutions. The crisis has revealed deep fractures in the credibility of Parliament, the judiciary, and the electoral system. Rebuilding trust in these pillars will be central to restoring a sense of order and legitimacy. For Karki, this means resisting political capture, maintaining transparency, and demonstrating that even an interim administration can act with integrity and restraint.
Equally vital is the conduct of free and fair elections within the stipulated timeframe. Only a fresh mandate can renew democratic legitimacy. Yet stability will remain elusive unless the state also engages meaningfully with long-ignored demands for recognition and inclusion from Madhesis, Janajatis, Dalits, and women. Karki's legacy will be shaped not by sweeping reforms but by whether she leaves the door open for a more inclusive political settlement that finally begins to heal Nepal's fractured social fabric.
Hope in uncertain times
Nepal stands once again at a crossroads. The exit of Oli and the rise of Karki are not final resolutions but new beginnings in an unfinished journey. The fragility of Nepal's democracy lies in its history of repeated ruptures, but so too does its resilience: the ability of its people to demand change when institutions fail.
Karki's leadership may be brief, but it carries an outsized symbolic weight. If she can hold the ground, resist partisan pressures, and guide Nepal toward credible elections, her appointment will mark not just an interlude but a modest turning point. The test is whether symbolism can translate into substance.
For those of us who inhabit the India–Nepal borderlands, Nepal’s democratic fortunes never feel distant, they reverberate through shared histories, languages, and aspirations. In the end, Nepal's future will depend not on one leader but on whether its institutions can finally transcend the cycle of unfinished revolutions.
(The author hails from the India–Nepal border region of Madhubani and Janakpur. A management professional, he writes regularly on society, literature, and the arts, often reflecting on the shared histories and cultures of South Asia.)