Nepal crisis signals lessons for corrupt regimes with high unemployment
In the past two days, the top news stories have been on the furious and violent protests in nearby Nepal. Barely a few days ago, there was wind of the clampdown on social media channels. This quickly grew into a youth (particularly Gen Z) protest against corruption, patronage and family-dominated politics in the Himalayan ex-kingdom. This comes months after the protests that led to regime change in Bangladesh, and the 2022 protests triggered by the economic collapse in Sri Lanka.
In Kathmandu, Dhaka and Colombo, youth have emerged as a political force. No surprise, given that this section is quite a large part of the overall population. They also have a long-term stake in the issue.
On the one hand, there is growing frustration over corruption and nepotism. Economic triggers – rising unemployment, inflation and a lack of opportunities – have sparked off the seasons of discontent. Besides, social media is bypassing traditional party structures. Heavy-handed state responses such as police crackdowns, censorship or arrests seem to have backfired. Ironically, the failure of the mainstream Opposition parties to represent public ire only led movements to emerge from beyond political channels.
But there are differences too. In Nepal, the core trigger was student anger over corruption and political patronage, besides unemployment and a lack of reform. The anger in Bangladesh over reservations for the descendants of freedom fighters grew out of perceptions that the system, meant to honour those who fought in 1971, has been distorted into an unfair advantage for ruling-party loyalists. In Lanka, the trigger was the economic collapse of that island nation, starved of fuel, food, medicine, and also facing an overall debt crisis.
Goals have also differed. In Nepal, the focus was less on regime change and more on accountability. Bangladesh, on the other hand, saw the street protests contribute to Hasina’s eventual resignation and exile. It was surprising, if not distressing, to see the hero of 1971, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, have his reputation sullied, probably because of unfulfilled aspirations. In Sri Lanka, there was a broader social coalition, rather than protests being purely youth-driven.
External influences have been blamed by some observers for fuelling these fiery protests. While foreign powers largely stayed in the background in Nepal, the US and EU mounted pressure by criticising democratic backsliding under Sheikh Hasina. The US went to the extent of imposing visa sanctions on certain Bangladeshi officials, a move that probably emboldened protesters. In Lanka, India offered emergency fuel, food and credit lines. The IMF and Western donors shaped the promised recovery path after Rajapaksa’s exit. Protests were democratically driven, but foreign states or institutions influenced both grievances and the outcome.
On the positive side, the protests show that, despite everything, citizens continue to expect – or even demand – greater transparency, accountability and political inclusion.
But will the situation in South Asia look different following the angry footfall? In a sense, it may change the perception that youth, civic groups or even citizens can hold political elites accountable. But the core irritants might not easily vanish. Regime change is possible, but will this deliver genuine democracy? Can economic dependence decrease all of a sudden? Will the new regime follow accountability?
Overall, such protests can reshape a nation’s political culture and create space for new actors. But unemployment, corruption and economic fragility need long-term solutions and hard work. The Nepal crisis is seen by observers as a lesson for those countries that have high corruption, poor governance, high unemployment and no accountability.
