Army Commits to Democratic Norms, But Questions Remain

The strengthening of democratic governance depends on the establishment of strong and credible state institutions. Only robust institutions can safeguard democracy; without them, individuals often seek to manipulate circumstances for personal gain. Following the Gen Z protests on September 8 and the subsequent incidents of indiscriminate arson, looting and destruction across the country, debates have intensified over the role of Nepal’s key institutions, including the national army. Questions have arisen about whether institutions entrusted with public safety and the well-being of people responded to the situation appropriately and in line with their mandate. The Gen Z protests on September 8 and the security measures taken, during which some youths lost their lives, form the backdrop of these events. The unrest that followed on September 9 escalated into attacks on state institutions, businesses and private property, including widespread arson and looting. In this context, scrutiny of national security agencies and their priorities is natural. How and why a movement intended to be peaceful turned into an attack on parliament remains unclear. Who infiltrated or incited protesters to provoke such violence? Much attention has focused on the Nepali Army, given its headquarters’ proximity to the Prime Minister’s Office at Singha Durbar and the Supreme Court on Ram Shah Path. These debates and criticisms have not only been acknowledged by the army but embraced as part of its commitment to democratic law and procedure. In a public statement, the army affirmed that it adhered fully to both the letter and spirit of the Constitution, responding to criticism more than one hundred days after the Gen Z protest.