Kathmandu, September 2025 — Nepal’s current turmoil has exposed a disturbing truth about modern uprisings: decentralised protests, without leaders or clear hierarchies, may be the hardest to control — and the most destructive.

A Movement Without a Face

The uprising that forced Prime Minister K. P. Sharma Oli to resign this month has no commanding figure. Instead, thousands of young Nepalis coordinate loosely through digital platforms, spilling into the streets with anger but without a single spokesperson or strategy. Government buildings have been torched, dozens of people killed, and curfews enforced across cities. Yet, even now, no one negotiates on behalf of the demonstrators.

In traditional protest movements, the presence of leadership provided a channel for dialogue, compromise, or even accountability. In Nepal today, there is no such bridge. The absence of centralised authority has created a vacuum where rage thrives but solutions remain invisible.

Why Decentralisation Fuels Chaos

No Negotiation Partner Governments attempting to quell unrest usually reach out to recognised leaders. With no one to represent Nepal’s protesters, talks stall before they even begin. Escalation Without Restraint Leaderless groups lack moderating voices. In Nepal, this has meant attacks on parliament, ministries, and residences — acts that further alienate sections of the public and invite heavy crackdowns. Hijacking Risk Without organisation, movements can be infiltrated or diverted by extremist elements. Already, whispers of royalist slogans and opportunistic factions are muddying the core demands of youth protesters. Unclear Endgame Decentralisation may succeed in bringing down governments, but it rarely builds replacements. From Occupy Wall Street to the Hong Kong demonstrations, history shows that leaderless protests often dissolve after achieving disruption, leaving disillusion rather than durable change.

Nepal’s Dangerous Precedent

For Nepal, the consequences could be severe. With parties discredited and protesters rejecting traditional leadership, the country risks drifting into prolonged instability. An interim government might emerge, but without the protesters’ endorsement, it could lack legitimacy. In this void, the military, or even calls for a symbolic monarchy, may gain strength.

A Warning Beyond Nepal

The leaderless model, often celebrated as “pure democracy,” is proving to be dangerously unstable in practice. What appears inclusive at first becomes unsustainable when hard decisions are needed. Without leaders to articulate goals, draft compromises, or accept responsibility, societies are left with movements that burn bright — and burn out — leaving behind ashes of disorder.

Bottom line: Nepal’s crisis shows why decentralised protests are not just unpredictable but perilous. They topple governments with ease, but without structure, they risk toppling nations into chaos too.