Uploaded May 2026 | Updated September 2026, 1 week ago
This seminar was part of the Sidney Seminar Series.
Speaker: Dr Mara Malagodi (Warwick Law School)
Chair: Dr Natalia Morales Cerda (UCL Laws)
About the talk
The 2015 Constitution of Nepal marked its 10th anniversary in September 2025 in the shadow of the so-called ‘Gen Z’ protests. These dramatic anti-corruption protests turned violent and resulted into the deaths of over 70 individuals, extensive damage to Nepal’s state infrastructure, the Prime Minister’s resignation, the dissolution of the House of Representatives, and the creation of an Interim Government led by former Supreme Court’s Chief Justice Sushila Karki to shepherd the country to fresh general elections. In this context of deepening political polarisation, demands for constitutional change have yet again resurfaced in Nepal’s political debates and taken centre stage in this fragile transition. Nepal’s 2015 constitutional experience is a case in point in a global scenario in which Gen Z protests have rocked the governments of Bangladesh, Indonesia, the Philippines, Madagascar, Morocco, and many others. Given the enormous expectations attached to Nepal’s post-conflict constitutional transition, the relative lack of change on the ground in the lived realities of many Nepalis has been deeply problematic. A decade after the new constitution came into force with the promise of delivering social inclusion through radical state restructuring, the reality on the ground has been deeply problematic. Nepal’s persistent inequalities, growing patterns of executive self-aggrandisement, incessant corruption scandals, repeated “musical chair” in government formation, difficulties in accessing the courts, delays in law making, and so on, have dented the legitimacy not just of those in government but also of the 2015 post-conflict constitutional settlement. In this context, Nepal has developed over the last three decades a troubling pattern of relying on the people’s direct intervention in the political domain to correct anti-democratic behaviour by the political elites and to ignite constitutional change. As a result, as systemic checks and balances have been weakened, or even disregarded by a self-aggrandising executive, repeated waves of popular upheaval have made the country’s constitutional system increasingly reliant on remedial measures outside of the system. This continuous ‘dependence on the people’ – to quote James Madison – as ‘the primary control on the government’ outside of the constitutional process, however, raises serious questions about the success, viability, and endurance of the current constitutional settlement, the frequency of constitutional replacement in the country, and the increasing risks of populist or even authoritarian takeover. I argue that this vicious cycle explains Nepal’s deep constitutional instability, but also the enduring demands for constitutional change in the face of constitutional degradation and growing authoritarian threats.
This seminar was part of the Sidney Seminar Series.
Speaker: Dr Mara Malagodi (Warwick Law School)
Chair: Dr Natalia Morales Cerda (UCL Laws)
About the talk
The 2015 Constitution of Nepal marked its 10th anniversary in September 2025 in the shadow of the so-called ‘Gen Z’ protests. These dramatic anti-corruption protests turned violent and resulted into the deaths of over 70 individuals, extensive damage to Nepal’s state infrastructure, the Prime Minister’s resignation, the dissolution of the House of Representatives, and the creation of an Interim Government led by former Supreme Court’s Chief Justice Sushila Karki to shepherd the country to fresh general elections. In this context of deepening political polarisation, demands for constitutional change have yet again resurfaced in Nepal’s political debates and taken centre stage in this fragile transition. Nepal’s 2015 constitutional experience is a case in point in a global scenario in which Gen Z protests have rocked the governments of Bangladesh, Indonesia, the Philippines, Madagascar, Morocco, and many others. Given the enormous expectations attached to Nepal’s post-conflict constitutional transition, the relative lack of change on the ground in the lived realities of many Nepalis has been deeply problematic. A decade after the new constitution came into force with the promise of delivering social inclusion through radical state restructuring, the reality on the ground has been deeply problematic. Nepal’s persistent inequalities, growing patterns of executive self-aggrandisement, incessant corruption scandals, repeated “musical chair” in government formation, difficulties in accessing the courts, delays in law making, and so on, have dented the legitimacy not just of those in government but also of the 2015 post-conflict constitutional settlement. In this context, Nepal has developed over the last three decades a troubling pattern of relying on the people’s direct intervention in the political domain to correct anti-democratic behaviour by the political elites and to ignite constitutional change. As a result, as systemic checks and balances have been weakened, or even disregarded by a self-aggrandising executive, repeated waves of popular upheaval have made the country’s constitutional system increasingly reliant on remedial measures outside of the system. This continuous ‘dependence on the people’ – to quote James Madison – as ‘the primary control on the government’ outside of the constitutional process, however, raises serious questions about the success, viability, and endurance of the current constitutional settlement, the frequency of constitutional replacement in the country, and the increasing risks of populist or even authoritarian takeover. I argue that this vicious cycle explains Nepal’s deep constitutional instability, but also the enduring demands for constitutional change in the face of constitutional degradation and growing authoritarian threats.
