With their Parliament building still warm from the blaze of the day before, tens of thousands of Nepalis gathered for an impromptu election. The burning of Parliament was only one part of a fiery two-day protest in Nepal’s capital, which toppled the former system, setting up an interim government in less than a week. In that time, what had begun as a demonstration against government corruption had turned into a movement. Protesters defied their implemented curfew, stood firm in the face of live ammunition, and withstood police raids across the city. In the end, they brought an interim prime minister to power through the world’s first online election utilizing Discord, a social media platform favored by the primarily Generation Z protesters.
The same week Nepalis toppled their government, U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to send the National Guard into several American cities. In this case, there was little protest. The bulk of demonstrations in the United States had already come and gone earlier in the year via a Feb. 28 economic blackout and social movements such as the “Hands Off” and “No Kings” protests. The latter was the largest single-day protest in U.S. history. Protesters had marched serenely along police-designated routes, brandishing signs that read witticisms like, “If Kamala was president right now, we’d all be at brunch.” It was peaceful, it was massive, and when it ended, not a single thing had changed.
The tepid tranquility of the “No Kings” protest stands in stark contrast to the fiery determination of the Nepalese protests — so stark that “No Kings” appears unworthy of even the word “protest.” After all, protests are supposed to represent civil unrest, emphasis on the unrest. “No Kings,” on the other hand, was all civil, with not a hint of unrest. For any kind of effective change to be accomplished in the United States, future protests must follow in Nepal’s footsteps and embrace the definition of “uncivil unrest.”
Much of what American observers stand to learn from Nepal’s protest success is not as unfamiliar as it may seem. America has its own long history of uncivil unrest — a history that validates the lessons we can take from Nepal and shows their effectiveness in this country previously. Nepal’s contemporary movement both leads by example and mirrors elements of American activism of the past, demonstrating that what works in one country will likely work in another. So what exactly can we learn from Nepal’s uncivil unrest?
First, a protest effort must be sustained. As mentioned earlier, recent American movements typically lasted a day at a time. This was even the crux of the Feb. 28 economic blackout, which touted itself for lasting only 24 hours. But a short-lived boycott or demonstration, no matter how large, does little to pressure those in power. Nepal’s protests went on for a week, in spite of a government-mandated curfew and police brutality that led to over 51 deaths. Nepal’s protests only ceased once interim Prime Minister Sushila Karki had assumed power. They ended once their goal had been achieved.
The United States is no stranger to sustained political action. The Montgomery Bus Boycott of the Civil Rights movement lasted for just over a year. The Civil Rights movement itself lasted for over a decade on a larger scale. Though it utilized protests that may have only lasted a day, including the March on Washington or the Selma-Montgomery marches, such protests were a part of a grander, clearly-defined movement, keeping continuous attention on the public resistance to racism and segregation. Modern-day protests, hoping to impede the Trump administration, need to operate at the same nationwide extent. Of course, another question remains: how can a movement operate at that level?
Again, Nepal has our answer. Prior to the protests, the country saw the emergence of the “#nepokids” trend on sites like TikTok, which highlighted the opulent lifestyles enjoyed by children of the political elite. These videos embodied the outrage against government corruption that fueled protests and helped communicate the protesters’ message to such an extent that the Nepali government instituted a ban on 26 social media platforms, just before the protests began. The non-governmental organization that designed many of these early protests, Hami Nepal, mobilized the country’s youth by planting “how to protest” videos on various social media platforms. Once the prime minister had resigned, Hami Nepal further organized the Discord server in which the next prime minister was chosen.
This is another thing to be learned from Nepal’s protests: the utilization of modern media to organize protesters. The use of Discord as a vessel for an election is a particularly unique and innovative one. Supporters argue that it allowed for more transparency than behind-closed-door politics. It certainly was a step forward for a democracy that is both direct and digital. And this usage of social media is exactly what allowed protesters to vest the power of their mass movement into a single figure: Sushila Karki. Not only did she negotiate with the Nepalese military on the protesters’ behalf, but she will be the interim prime minister until formal elections are held. It was thanks to this creative application of social media that the protests had a lasting impact at all.
America’s protesting history also represents an engagement with the media of the time. Most notably, Thomas Paine’s Common Sense took advantage of an emerging print culture to capture hearts and minds throughout the Thirteen Colonies in the name of independence. Later, during the Civil Rights movement, haunting images of the violence employed by law enforcement officers pushed the federal government to take action against Jim Crow laws in the South. Today, Americans have used social media extensively to document and organize protests, but a continual presence on social media is critical to ensuring the longevity of movements. Spaces for protesters to express their voices, like Hami Nepal’s Discord server, are crucial if Americans want to effectively cultivate these grassroots movements that adapt to the advice of their citizens.
Finally, protests should be disruptive. This doesn’t mean that they should employ political violence. Rather, they should seek to challenge the status quo being enforced by those in power. In Nepal, young protesters blocked an airport and concentrated their protests around the federal parliamentary building. These disruptions to the routine of daily life are a crucial part of uncivil unrest because without such disruptions, a protest is toothless. While “No Kings” saw roads being closed to accommodate protesters, these roads were closed by police officers and were not exactly a challenge to the status quo.
The United States is built on disruptive protest. The Boston Tea Party, one of the early, key moments in the American Revolution, was an incredibly disruptive protest, but it was also a nonviolent one. During the Civil Rights movement, sit-ins were a means of nonviolent civil disobedience that still disrupted the South’s segregationist political landscape. At the same time, the Black Panther Party formed armed police patrols to combat police brutality. Party members would follow the police around to monitor any incidents of brutality while carrying loaded guns, a practice that was entirely legal at the time and remained peaceful. The BPP’s police patrols are a paramount example of nonviolent disruptive action as well as the type of creative thinking necessary for successful protest.
It was the American transcendentalist Henry David Thoreau who wrote, “All men recognize the right of revolution… the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable.” America is built on these ideals, but in the modern age, it has not been the people of America who embody them. Instead, the people of Nepal have shown the way — all Americans have to do is follow their lead. We won’t have to wait long for a chance. The next “No Kings” protest is set for Oct. 18. Let’s just hope it turns out to be a proper protest, not another parade.
Featured Image Source: BBC
