Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh have all witnessed the fall of autocrats and shifts in political landscapes on almost the same scale. The course of events appears similar, yet Bangladesh has taken a very different path in terms of governance. Unlike Bangladesh, neither Nepal nor Sri Lanka experienced endless rounds of so-called reforms, disputes over consensus, rumours fuelling mob actions, or caricature-like performances by protest leaders.
In Nepal and Sri Lanka, there was no prolonged debate over reforms before elections. Neither did local body or student union polls overshadow national elections. They did not see a frenzy of administrative reshuffles in the name of reforms or a spree of takeovers of mills and factories. Their economies never slipped onto life support as happened in Bangladesh.
Their business and investment communities were never thrown into such deep uncertainty. Within hours of taking oath as interim Prime Minister, Sushila Karki dissolved Nepal’s parliament and announced elections for 5 March next year. Her appointment followed the resignation of Prime Minister K. P. Sharma Oli amid anti-corruption protests, where all sides quickly agreed on Karki as a consensus leader.
Like in Bangladesh, it was the protesters who first proposed her name for leadership. Karki had earlier served as Nepal’s Chief Justice from 2016 to mid-2017. Her integrity, anti-corruption stance and firmness earned her broad respect. With Gen Z-led protests shaking the nation for a week, her appointment, parliament dissolution and election announcement came swiftly. Sri Lanka too wasted no time after its upheaval.
There was no parade of congratulatory statements. Nor did Nepal’s new government indulge in denunciations or grand declarations. At the same time, Bangladesh was mired in a tedious three-day vote count for JUCSU elections. Nepal had already seen one prime minister ousted, another installed, and a national election date announced.
Contrast with Bangladesh’s delays
While India managed to retrieve and reinstall fallen aircraft parts within days, and China swiftly produced a vaccine for a new infectious disease, Bangladesh could not finalise JUCSU results or set a date for its 13th parliamentary polls. Even now, it must be said: nothing can stop February’s general elections.
In Sri Lanka, corruption was almost wiped out within days of the uprising. Despite rallies and protests, there were no reports of mobs attacking factories or occupying shops. Meanwhile, Nepal’s interim leader Sushila Karki took office on the same day she announced elections for 5 March, ensuring constitutional continuity. Young protesters held repeated meetings with President Paudel and Army Chief Ashok Raj Sigdel, arriving at a quick settlement: elections within six months, preservation of the constitution, and a unity drive. No diversionary complications were entertained.
As Chief Justice, Sushila Karki had been noted for her ‘zero tolerance’ stance against corruption, which is why young protesters proposed her as interim leader. She avoided unnecessary bargaining over sequencing reforms versus elections. This was the exact opposite of Bangladesh. Unlike Bangladesh, Nepal has relatively little corruption, money laundering or grassroots-level political capture. Hence, decisions such as fixing an election date were easier, and Gen Z protesters showed maturity by securing that assurance on the day of her oath.
In Nepal, too, there were disagreements among protesters about elevating Karki as prime minister. But differences were quickly set aside, and she was sworn in without delay. Side by side with her oath came measures to restore law and order. This produced quick results: curfews were lifted and normal life in Kathmandu resumed rapidly. Sri Lanka’s turnaround, which came before Bangladesh’s crisis, is equally instructive.
Sri Lanka’s recovery
The island nation, once on the brink of bankruptcy, has regained much stability. Despite initial turmoil, it has overcome food and fuel shortages and rebuilt its foreign reserves. It has already repaid 75% of the USD 200 million loan it took from Bangladesh in 2021 under a currency swap arrangement. It is also gradually repaying other debts. Key to this recovery were policy choices by its new government and central bank, along with a rebound in tourism, agriculture and remittance inflows.
After the collapse of Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s government, Sri Lanka’s central bank and other institutions regained independence, winning back the trust of investors and businesses. Democratic processes were consolidated, and public interest was restored as the central concern of governance. This public awareness and institutional trust are visible in Nepal too.
Clear roadmap in Nepal and Sri Lanka
One clear pattern stands out: interim governments in both Nepal and Sri Lanka immediately announced election dates. Citizens knew what lay ahead, so protests quickly gave way to preparations for polls. Bangladesh lacks this clarity. Here, political disputes are not only over elections but also over the very structure of government. Conflicts are compounded by institutional weaknesses, with the Election Commission, administration and law enforcement never seen as neutral by political parties or the public.
Even after mass uprisings, Bangladesh remains mired in political polarisation. Confrontation outweighs consensus. Unlike Nepal and Sri Lanka, where all sides agreed that the people’s vote would be the final solution, Bangladesh has failed to channel movements into elections. The Gen Z generation here is divided, and political parties remain fragmented.
Lessons for Bangladesh
Nepal and Sri Lanka are not free of political disputes, but they converged on one point: elections as the ultimate answer. Their experiences prove that however deep the crisis, with confidence in the economy, investment and stability, the public can swiftly shift from protest to the ballot box. Bangladesh has yet to achieve that institutional trust and consensus.
The writer is a journalist and columnist, and Deputy Head of News, BanglaVision.
