It is a serious irony that barely four months after the Gen Z protests, many veteran political actors appear to have retreated into self-interest, forgetting the momentum of the protests, while recklessness and impulsiveness—rather than responsibility—seem to be gaining ground among some activists. The protests of September 8 and 9 were expected to have a decisive and positive impact on the country’s politics and system of governance. Given the scale of public anger, widespread participation and the damage endured during the movement, it was natural to expect a change in the style of state functioning, a strengthening of good governance and tangible improvements in citizens’ daily lives. Yet, not long after the movement, those expectations have steadily faded away. Today’s reality creates the impression that the sacrifices made during the protests may have been squandered. Beyond the inclusion of a few new faces in government, ordinary people have experienced little meaningful change. This places a greater responsibility on the new government to prove that the movement was not in vain by delivering visible and credible governance reforms.
Where there is government, there is corruption!
The formation of the new government raised hopes of greater transparency, an end to nepotism and favouritism, and the assignment of public responsibilities based on merit. Recent decisions, however, suggest otherwise. Appointments across various state bodies indicate that proximity and access continue to outweigh competence and capability, undermining—and even mocking—the movement’s central demand for “good governance.” If left unaddressed, this will further weaken public faith in the political transition. The administrative sector presents an even grimmer picture. The movement had raised expectations that accountability would increase within the bureaucracy and corruption would decline. For ordinary citizens, however, little has changed. Service delivery remains cumbersome and there is no visible improvement in bureaucratic responsibility or responsiveness. This stagnation has further eroded public trust in the state and underscores the urgent need for administrative reform under the new government. Society had also looked to the younger generation—particularly the Gen-Z cohort that stood at the forefront of the movement—for positive leadership. There was hope they would embody the values of rule of law, discipline, and civic responsibility. Instead, recent trends point to growing recklessness, impulsiveness, and arrogance among some, which is deeply concerning. Weakening regulation and loosening social discipline are clear warning signs of a deeper crisis.
At the same time, expectations that leaders of older political parties would engage in serious self-reflection and abandon their fixation on power have largely been disappointed. Rather than introspection, there appears to be a resurgence of arrogance and self-importance. Their conduct risks reducing what was widely seen as a historic movement into a mere spectacle. There is now no alternative but for all stakeholders—especially the new government—to undertake serious self-examination and corrective action. Transparency, accountability, and responsibility must be institutionalised in governance and administration. A genuinely citizen-centred bureaucracy must be built, and nepotism and favouritism must be decisively dismantled. Equally, the Gen-Z youth must move away from recklessness and assert themselves as responsible, disciplined citizens. Failure to act decisively on these fronts will not only betray the spirit of the movement but also risk plunging the country back into a cycle of instability and destruction. The moment demands reform—not rhetoric—and the new government must rise to that challenge.
