Security at the time of polycrisis
In a technology dominated global system, when the interests of one country overlap with those of others, conflict rises and crises emerge. The crises are entangled with various sectors of state affairs such as politics, technology, economy and social development. Crises emerge not only at the global level but also at the national level. In many cases, a small event can trigger painful consequences. In a democratic system, state affairs are delicate in nature as they are meticulously linked with people’s aspirations. If these aspirations are not fulfilled, disruptions escalate rapidly. Prior to the 1990s, the world was mainly divided along ideological lines—capitalism and communism, steered respectively by the USA and the then Soviet Union.
In the present day of the 21st century, situations have dramatically changed, as developed countries are locked in unhealthy geopolitical competition to increase and expand their traditional means of state power. The seen and unseen rivalry has no longer focused on strengthening their military power alone, rather they have concentrated their entire activities on economic dominance influencing and coercing others by fair means or foul. Thus, being a consequence of global interconnectivity, the polycrisis neologism has captured the present-day state affairs.
Vulnerabilities
Nepali GenZ (Nava Pusta) protests of Sept 2025 were largely based on non-political ideologies in nature. The protests were primarily rooted in structural economic grievances, antediluvian working style of established political parties and poor service delivery of the government.
A weak national economy, heavy dependence on remittances and foreign loans, ineffective governance, poor implementation of public policy and frequent changes in federal and provincial governments resulted in challenges of unemployment, inflation, corruption and a trust deficit in political parties, fueled widespread dissatisfaction among the Nava Pusta.
The collapse of the entire federal government within just two days of Nava Pusta’s protests was an unprecedented incident in the political history of Nepal. However, the destruction of government physical infrastructures, and public and private property through arson by anti-national elements (who were not genuine members of GenZ) cannot be condoned and pardoned.
The changes that took place after the Nava Pusta movement shuddered the foundations of established political parties were significant. The international media labeled the protests as a ‘color revolution’. Whether this was truly a ‘color revolution’ or simply GenZ-led protests remains a matter of academic discourse. The former Home Minister’s statement given before the High Level Investigation Commission clearly points to direct influence of foreign elements in the peaceful GenZ protests. But the wave created by these protests has had a long-lasting tremor. The political instability in a geopolitically sensitive country has created a space for different actors who have hidden agendas to exploit Nepali soil and politics for their benefits, and is a serious threat to national security.
At this point of critical juncture, a single issue can spiral into a polycrisis. It can trigger the erosion of public trust in democratic institutions, leading to ineffective crisis response and governance paralysis. Security, in such a polycrisis situation often becomes reactive rather than strategically active. Nepal’s security needs to be active and agile to ensure that the Nepali people are competent enough to handle their internal challenges independently. The Nepali people and leadership alike must act accordingly so that no external power gains a foothold in the country’s strategic decision-making processes—directly or indirectly.
To demonstrate one’s capability to manage internal issues independently, requires the application of strong security measures backed by accurate information, use of advanced technology, coordinated strategic planning and action, and high-morale security personnel. The security organizations must have the ability to anticipate the future, not just respond to it. Experienced and highly skilled security officers are crisis managers, risk analysts, strategic communicators, and protectors of national interests and sovereignty. They are not merely the persons in uniforms rather they are the backbone of state security and stability.
Driving seat
Citizens are the first to bear the effects of polycrisis. The interwoven challenges in the economy, society and governance can escalate into a full-blown crisis at any time that requires more vigilance in national affairs.
Sometimes, voices appear in the media alleging that the country—X has played a foul game by intervening in Nepal, provoking public agitation against the government and fueling conflict among the castes and social class. Diplomatically, it is not wise to allege Country X or Y, while ignoring the need to analyze and address domestic causes and their impact in society. Instead of pointing fingers at others, the government, political parties and concerned authorities should mend flawed policies and change outmoded mind-sets, and ensure good governance for the well-being of citizens and the nation at large.
It is natural for Country X or Y to take all necessary steps to safeguard their national interests. If they believe that by destabilizing a weaker country serves their purpose, they leave no stone unturned to fish in troubled waters. This is a routine work of global diplomacy.
Ultimately, it is the major responsibility of Nepali political parties who hold the reins of state governance to keep their own house in order. They must foster harmonious relations within Nepali society and among common citizens, keeping in mind the age-old saying—Anekata Ma Ekata, Nepali Samaja Ko Biseshata (Unity in Diversity is the defining characteristic of Nepali Society).
Sustained economic development, a secure civil society, transparent practices, good governance, effective security organizations, and justice for all will help to keep foreign elements at bay. When the entire society upholds a value-based system rooted in patriotism and ethics no external force dares to rock the boat or destabilize the nation.
Weak governance invites security threats
In this age of artificial intelligence, communication has become remarkably efficient at transferring knowledge, skills and disseminating opinions, which has revolutionized the entire socio-economic and political landscape of the country. When citizens become dissatisfied with the government, they voice their concerns through various means of expressions—chiefly newspapers, electronic media, and public speeches at mass gatherings. When the government’s off-color performance draws harsh castigation, the vulnerability to security threat intensifies.
People today are more aware than ever. They judge the entire functioning of the governance system—the power exercise mechanism for the management of the country’s internal and external affairs. In the name of establishing good governance, if it is marked by corruption, unaccountability, impunity, poor leadership and unresponsiveness, the nation becomes vulnerable to insecurity and instability.
In such a state of vulnerability, overall governance becomes progressively weaker. Weak governance refers to the government’s inability to function effectively, resulting in a loss of trust among its citizens and international community. Once the trust deficit flows on the surface of government—citizen relations, public participation in socio-economic and political development declines.
Sudan and South Sudan have endured relentless and devastating civil wars because of the utter failure of the public delivery system, widespread corruption, grossly unequal distribution of resources, deep-seated ethnic divisions, and exclusionary governance. Haiti’s frequent leadership changes and rampant corruption are another example of internal conflict resulting from weak governance, which invited insecurity across the country. Ineffective policing and low morale among security personnel allowed criminal gangs to gain control over parts of the capital.
Even today foreign tourists rarely dare to visit the country, contributing to a continued decline in its economy. These two instances give an eye-opening lesson to all the developing nations about the dire consequences of the government’s failure to establish good governance. If the governance system deteriorates due to the shortsightedness of ruling leaders and ineffective performance of bureaucracy, it creates fertile ground for external powers to exploit such countries for their strategic interests. A country with a weak government is fertile ground for corruption, conflict and foreign interference.
Learning lessons
In 1990, following the restoration of multiparty democracy, Nepal adopted a neoliberal policy in response to the global wave of liberalization. Liberalization necessitates strong competition across all spheres of national activity, including the economy, social development and political democratization. Competitive strength is gained through the cultivation of a highly skilled human resource base, the production of value-added industrial goods based on national resources, manufacturing of low cost-high value products, maintaining stable national policies, winning the trust of private sector, and upkeeping of a stable, transparent, corruptionless governance and fostering hassle free business environment.
However, the expected outcomes of the goals envisioned through policies on industrial development, quality education, creation of a corruption-free society, promotion of professional ethics, reduction of inequality between rural and urban populations, modernization of agriculture, and the creation of job opportunities for youth were not materialized to the extent anticipated. In the past, during the election campaign, political parties used to entice voters with ambitious promises—pledging to transform Nepal into a ‘second Singapore’, generate employment and ensure free housing, clothing and food for all Nepali citizens. Unfortunately, such promises were never fulfilled. Rather, the youth were made to leave their homeland to seek employment abroad. as there were limited job opportunities within the country. This situation left young people and others frustrated and dissatisfied.
Empirical studies reveal that if the public dissatisfaction with the government continues for long, it can pose a serious threat to national security, potentially triggering turbulence resulting through peaceful or violent actions. The GenZ (Nava Yuba) protest on Sept 8 began as a peaceful demonstration. However, under the guise of the GenZ movement, the next day witnessed unlawful activities of arson targeting historic government buildings, private residences, media houses, and business centers followed by looting of public and private property and killing of police personnel amid growing suspicions of infiltration. This was an unprecedented incident in the political history of Nepal. Even during the decade-long Maoist insurgency, no such incident had taken place.
Some politicians and intellectuals opine that the protests and destruction of Sept 9 caused by purported GenZ were orchestrated by foreign powers. But was the unrest truly instigated by external elements? This is indeed a sensitive and serious question. One thing is clear: weak governance invites foreign interference and fuels domestic discontent. No doubt, external actors are always active in attempts to destabilize the government to serve their interests. Nevertheless, it is the solemn duty and responsibility of all Nepali patriots—whether in government or outside it—to be vigilant and resolute in sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity.
If Nepal becomes economically resilient and technologically advanced, its voice on global platforms will be far stronger than before. In such a case, no foreign power will be able to turn the country into its playground. It is also time to understand why governance remains so fragile in the Sahel region of Africa and how Ukraine has been enduring the ravages of war for the last three years. There are significant lessons to be learnt from their experiences.
Despite its major mandate to conduct free and fair elections scheduled on 5 March 2026, the government simultaneously should ensure effective governance so that the people’s hopes for a better life do not go in vain.
