Previous
In September 2025, Nepal witnessed what many have described as the Generation Z (Gen Z) uprising. Within a few days, the youth-led protests transformed the country’s political landscape. It became one of Nepal’s shortest yet most consequential youth-led protests in modern democratic history. The uprising resulted in the resignation of the then Prime Minister. Later, Gen Z-led youth groups recommended the former Chief Justice to lead an interim government tasked with holding elections within six months.
After the March election, former Kathmandu Metropolitan City mayor Balendra Shah became Nepal’s youngest Prime Minister. This youth-led uprising dramatically reshaped the country’s governance and economic discourse.
Nepal’s events raise a broader question facing societies worldwide: how can institutions generate credible evidence and support democratic decision-making in an era of rapid political change?
What made this movement extraordinary was not only its speed but also the way it unfolded. For perhaps the first time in Nepal, a nationwide political movement emerged without being led by established political parties or political leaders.
This time was different. Unlike the People’s Movement of 1990 and the ‘Jana Andolan’ of 2006, the 2025 Gen Z movement was not led by political parties. It was organised by ordinary citizens, many of them young students, professionals, and entrepreneurs who were mobilised through digital platforms. They were united by frustration with corruption, unemployment, poor governance, and a political system they felt no longer reflected their aspirations.
What began as a peaceful demonstration, however, soon turned tragic. Clashes between protesters and security forces escalated into one of the deadliest episodes of civic unrest in recent years. Dozens of civilians, including students, lost their lives, while hundreds more were injured. The violence not only fuelled public anger but also deepened the institutional crisis, reshaping the country’s leadership within days.
Yet Nepal’s experience was not isolated. Across Asia and beyond, Generation Z has emerged as an increasingly influential political force.
Across Asia, a new generation is reshaping political participation. From Bangladesh’s student-led movement and Sri Lanka’s ‘Aragalaya’ protests to youth mobilisations in Indonesia and the Philippines, young people are using digital platforms to organise, mobilise, and challenge established institutions. Similar mobilisation has also emerged far beyond Asia, from Morocco and Madagascar to Peru and Bulgaria. While each movement arose from its own national context, they shared a common thread. A Bloomberg Economics report, which used a machine-learning model to analyse 22 million data points on youth-led global protests, concluded that unemployment, corruption, and rising inequality are strong predictors of youth-led unrest.
Think Tanks in Nepal’s Changing Governance Landscape
This broader shift raises an important question for think tanks: what role should they play when public debates increasingly happen outside traditional policy spaces?
In the digital era, ideas now move faster through social platforms than through traditional research outputs such as reports or policy briefs. The challenge for think tanks is to ensure that credible evidence reaches public debates when it matters most.
Historically, think tanks have played an important role as knowledge producers, policy advisors, and intermediaries between research and decision-makers. Yet today’s rapidly changing, AI-enabled information environment requires them to apply critical thinking to what research informs their policy advice, who produces that knowledge, who benefits from it, what the data mean in different contexts, and how intended beneficiaries perceive and interpret it. Equally important is how think tanks communicate policy options and contribute to informed, inclusive, and democratic dialogue in today’s information landscape.
This challenge was clearly illustrated during Nepal’s recent political transition. After the government’s resignation and the formation of an interim administration, the country entered a period of constitutional and political uncertainty. Questions quickly emerged. What constitutional pathway should the country follow? What should be the priorities of an interim government? How could economic stability be maintained while restoring public trust? What reforms should take precedence, and which should be left to an elected government?
These were not questions for politicians alone. They were questions for the nation. In moments like these, societies need trusted and independent institutions that can convene dialogue, translate evidence into practical policy choices, and create space for informed public debate. This is where think tanks can offer a distinctive comparative advantage.
From evidence to policy dialogue: NPI’s external voting experience
A recent example from Nepal is the debate over external voting for Nepalis living abroad. Following the Gen Z movement, nationwide demand renewed to ensure voting rights for more than four million Nepali migrant workers and other citizens living overseas. Although the Constitution of Nepal 2015 recognises citizens’ political rights, successive democratic governments had failed to establish a workable mechanism for external voting, despite a Supreme Court directive. The interim government therefore faced a difficult combination of public expectation, legal and institutional constraints, and a very limited mandate and timeframe.
In this policy vacuum, the Nepal Policy Institute (NPI) Chair-led team conducted a rapid study and developed practical recommendations on implementing external voting. NPI first shared its recommendations with the Election Commission in October 2025 to inform the interim government decisions. This was followed by invitations from the Prime Minister’s Office, the ministries responsible for Home Affairs, Law, the Ministry of Education and Information and Communication, as well as the National Assembly, for the NPI Chair-led team to make evidence-based policy advice on the available voting methods, implementation requirements, costs, risks, and practical challenges. NPI also held a series of follow-up discussions with government officials and advocacy groups supporting voting rights for Nepalis abroad. NPI turned the emotion-filled, demand-focused voting rights debate into solution-focused policy dialogues. NPI also published a Policy Brief (NPI Policy Brief Issue 7) on external voting, drawing on international evidence and global best practices. The brief highlighted the Philippines’ overseas voting model as an important comparative case for Nepal.
Importantly, the dialogue extended beyond government. Leaders and representatives from major political parties—including the Nepali Congress, UML, RSP and RPP—as well as Gen Z groups and Nepali student organisations abroad engaged with the NPI team to better understand the available options. The government think tank, PRI, also invited NPI to contribute to its policy dialogue on external voting. Major media outlets, including Kantipur, Online Khabar and Republica, covered NPI’s research through interviews and news reports, helping inform the wider public. Together, these engagements shifted the debate from whether external voting should happen to how it could be implemented, what trade-offs were involved, and what could realistically be achieved within the available time.
One important example was a meeting on 13 November 2025 at Hotel Ambassador in Kathmandu, where the RSP leadership team met the NPI research team. NPI Chair-led team presented findings on different external-voting options, with particular attention to internet voting (i-Voting), including possible implementation models, costs, timelines, safeguards, and operational challenges. After the presentation, RSP, now the ruling party, publicly committed to pursuing i-Voting as a core means of enabling Nepalis living abroad to participate in elections. The RSP announcement was made at a press conference at the same venue, drawing on NPI’s evidence-based recommendations.
Although the interim government ultimately faced serious legislative, procurement, and institutional constraints that limited immediate implementation of external voting, the wider dialogue helped stakeholders understand those constraints more clearly. This mattered hugely. Public frustration did not simply translate into another confrontation over the absence of external voting in the elections; instead, the issue increasingly became part of an informed policy debate to be carried forward by the elected government. One key factor was NPI’s independence and evidence-based approach, which allowed its recommendations to be heard and considered by a wide range of stakeholders across both government, non-government sectors and Media.
This example shows how an independent think tank can strengthen democracy at a critical moment by clarifying choices, examining evidence and trade-offs, and helping governments and citizens make more informed decisions.
What does the State of the Sector survey tell us?
The findings from the State of the Sector Survey 2026 provide an opportunity to examine this changing role of think tanks in the world and also look at our local context of think tanks in Nepal. The global think tanks that participated in this survey highlight both the continued importance of evidence-based policy advising and the challenges think tanks face in adapting to new political, technological, and social realities. Below are three key takeaways from the survey:
Funding is declining at a time when demand for evidence is rising
The Global Think Tanks State of the Sector Survey 2026 reveals a troubling paradox: while the need for independent policy research has never been greater, funding for think tanks is becoming increasingly constrained. Nearly half of the Nepalese think tank surveyed reported a significant decline in funding over the past year, driven by the closure of USAID programmes and shifting donor priorities towards security and geopolitical issues. At the same time, many think tanks remain heavily dependent on a single donor, making them particularly vulnerable to sudden funding shocks.
As one participant at the Southern Voice Forum aptly noted, “Flexible, long-term funding is freedom. Without it, think tanks chase projects rather than shape policy.” This observation is particularly relevant in Nepal. The issues driving Nepal’s Gen Z movement, which are governance, accountability, and institutional reform, are precisely the areas facing declining support. Yet the demand for credible evidence and public debate has never been greater.
Use of AI and think tanks
The use of artificial intelligence (AI) is increasing across all sectors, including academia and think tanks. The Sector Survey 2026 findings on AI present a mixed picture. Roughly half of the respondents reported actively using AI. Others selected “don’t know” rather than a clear “no,” suggesting that adoption remains uneven and is often informal.
Among those using AI, most reported applying it to communications and research support rather than fundraising or administration. Respondents reported using generative AI, writing and grammar tools to draft content, as well as image and audio tools for communication purposes. For many small think tanks with limited financial and human resources, these tools provide a practical way to produce high-quality public-facing materials without dedicated communications staff. However, human critical thinking must remain central when AI tools produce policy advice, because poorly designed policy can affect entire communities and human oversight remains fundamental. This is equally relevant for Nepal, where the think-tank culture is growing but the quality of policy work still requires attention. Reports of parliamentarians using AI-generated questions without adequately validating the evidence point to a wider capability gap. One response is to strengthen policy leadership programmes focused on AI–human collaboration, critical thinking, evidence verification and responsible decision-making for policymakers.
The findings suggest that many think tanks are adopting AI as a practical, low-cost tool rather than as a strategic investment, helping them extend limited research and communication capacity. However, using AI in policy work—particularly to prepare policy advice and synthesise evidence from multiple sources—requires a strong critical approach. This is an area where Nepali think tanks need to strengthen their capabilities further.
As with global trends, Nepal’s think tanks are aligning with post-Gen Z governance priorities
The Survey suggests that the think tank sector is already responding, with governance reform, institutional capacity, political stability and institutional reform emerging as major research priorities globally. Yet improving governance also requires changes in the skills, judgement and behaviour of public officials. Independent think tanks can add particular value because learning delivered outside routine government structures can create a more open space for reflection, questioning and experimentation. Well-designed experiential programmes can strengthen critical thinking, evidence use and professional judgement, helping public officials make more accountable decisions and deliver services more effectively. This applies to Nepal’s post-Gen Z governance context.
Since the Gen Z uprising, Nepal has been forced to confront difficult questions about the quality and responsiveness of its governance system. The current political environment carries strong youth energy, good intentions and expectations for more efficient public-service delivery, but achieving meaningful outcomes will also require sustained upskilling of government officials, including experienced senior officers. As governance becomes increasingly digital and is shaped by misinformation, disinformation, fake news and rapidly expanding access to AI tools, the risks of poor judgement also grow. Public officials therefore need stronger capabilities in critical thinking, evidence assessment, AI–human collaboration and both day-to-day and long-term policy decision-making. Capacity-building initiatives such as the Nepal Policy Leadership Program (NPLP), offered by NPI in collaboration with Kathmandu University, can help strengthen these capabilities and contribute to more informed decisions, better policy design and more effective public-service delivery.
This is where think tanks can play a critical role in Nepal’s post-Gen-Z governance reform. They can turn public frustration into evidence, policy choices, informed debate, and stronger capacity for accountable decision-making.