Should 16-Year-Olds Vote in Nepal? Nepal’s Missing Million Young Voters

Nepal is a very young country – about 40% of its roughly 30 million people are under 18. Yet under current law, only adults can vote. Article 84 of Nepal’s 2015 constitution states that every citizen “having attained the age of 18 years shall have the right to vote.” In practice, a Nepali only becomes an “adult” voter at 18, even though the law also grants citizenship at 16. For example, one analysis points out that a 16-year-old Nepali can hold citizenship (and even certain jobs) but must still wait two more years for the ballot. Across the globe, a few countries (Austria, Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and parts of the UK, among others) have already lowered the voting age to 16.

Should Nepal join them?

Nepal’s youth bulge is enormous: teens and young adults dominate the population and the electorate. Government figures show roughly 20% of Nepalis are 16–25 years old, and about 40% fall in the broader “youth” category of 16–40. Even in the voter list, more than half of registered voters were 18–40 in recent elections. Yet Nepali youth have tiny influence in politics – only about 5% of Members of Parliament are below age 40. Many young Nepalis feel under-served by older leaders. A 2018 study found 83% of young voters thought parties cared only about themselves, and 75% said they would cast a ballot for a fresh, young candidate even if that person had little chance of winning. The demand for change is palpable. As one 2013 commentator argued, “Isn’t curtailing the basic political right of a group with such high potential absurd?”

The Case for 16-Year Voting

Advocates say extending the franchise to 16- and 17-year-olds would engage millions more Nepalis and energize democracy. Currently, about 1.1 million Nepalis (roughly 5% of the population) are age 16–17 – old enough to hold citizenship but too young to vote. Proponents point out this gap: a citizenship certificate at 16 grants legal identity and even eligibility for some jobs, so it seems unfair to bar those teens from choosing leaders. In practice, youth groups in Nepal have been pressing for greater inclusion. For example, the Association of Youth Organizations Nepal (AYON) recently won a policy change so that all youths turning 18 could register early in the 2022 election – a victory they hailed as “for youth as a whole.” Many young leaders now say: if we can get a citizenship card at 16, why shouldn’t we get a vote?

Globally, experiences with younger voters have been encouraging. In countries that lowered the age, studies show 16–17-year-olds turn out in high numbers and vote seriously. Research covering Austria, Scotland, Wales, and parts of Germany finds that enfranchised 16–17-year-olds often vote at even higher rates than older first-time voters. One expert notes that when 16–17s were allowed to vote in Austria and similar places, they were “just as qualified to vote as other, older voters,” choosing parties that truly represented their views. Crucially, adding these teens did not swing elections. For example, young Brazilians in the 2022 presidential vote behaved just like their elders, and when Scotland let 16- and 17-year-olds vote in the 2014 independence referendum, the outcome was unchanged by the youth vote. In short, lowering the age tends to make democracies more inclusive without breaking them.

These examples suggest benefits for Nepal. Including more youth could strengthen civic engagement: younger voters often are still in school and living at home, so they can more easily make it to the polls. In fact, one analysis argues that 16–17-year-olds may form “more engaged” first-time voters than many 18–20-year-olds, who often move out, start work or university and become harder to reach. Over time, giving teens a stake in democracy can also pull older generations into more political discussion – dinnerside debates may involve youth voices earlier, which could energize civic life. And holding the age at 16 signals that society takes young people seriously, potentially boosting their long-term trust in government. Indeed, young people in countries where the age was lowered report greater satisfaction with democracy.

What Nepali Youth and Leaders Say

The debate is alive in Nepal, and many young Nepalis have strong views. Youth activists and organizers stress they want to be part of elections. For instance, reports tell of “Youth Voter Champions” who teach fellow teens how to register and vote. One such champion, Ganesh Khatri, said that without his outreach efforts many classmates “would have missed the chance to vote” in a past election. Another example: 18-year-old Bharat KC, who has a disability, wrote that before a voter-awareness class he was completely “unaware of the basic things that I need to know to be eligible to vote.” Afterward he was “very happy” to learn and register, noting “now I can take part in future elections and cast a vote for my best candidate.” These stories show young Nepalis are eager for voting rights and just need information and support.

Political analysts echo this urgency. One young analyst asks why the government recognizes 16- and 17-year-olds as citizens yet “constrains the voting rights of five percent of its population.” Even legislators have weighed in. In a 2016 parliamentary committee, members from multiple parties (including Prem Suwal of the Nepal Workers Peasants Party) argued forcefully that if people can get citizenship and even government jobs at 16, “there was no reason to set [the voting age] at 18 years.” On the other hand, some older officials caution that teenagers may lack political maturity. (This concern is common worldwide, though studies from Austria and Germany suggest 16–17-year-olds choose wisely.)

Challenges and the Path to Change

Lowering the voting age in Nepal wouldn’t be automatic. The most obvious barrier is legal. Since the constitution fixes the voting age at 18, any change would require a formal amendment. Nepal’s Constitution (Article 274) demands a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament to alter fundamental rights like suffrage. In practice, this means a broad political consensus (and possibly a public referendum) would be needed before teens could vote. Even if lawmakers agree, election laws and regulations would have to be revised too – for example, the Election Commission would need new rules to register 16–17-year-olds and update voter rolls.

Another challenge is civic readiness. Teenagers would need education to make informed choices. Fortunately, examples exist: after Austria lowered its age, the government also invested heavily in civic and citizenship education in schools. Experts note that Austria and Scotland paired age reform with curricula on political issues, which helped young voters participate effectively. In Nepal, a similar push in schools and colleges (possibly using Nepal’s vibrant youth clubs and social media) could help. Already, organizations like Youth Initiative (YI) have run college workshops and social-media campaigns to teach voting basics. Those efforts would just become more important if the voting age fell to 16.

Key steps toward lowering the age would include:

1. Amending the constitution and election laws (likely requiring a two-thirds vote in Parliament).
2. Preparing the Election Commission to register millions of new eligible voters.
3. Running civic education programs in schools and communities.
4. Ensuring youth voices are heard (for instance, by encouraging parties to address student issues).

The rules for who can run for office would remain unchanged (candidates must still be 25 or older in national polls), but at 16 teenagers would gain the right to influence those who lead.

Any change would also need to navigate skepticism. Some worry that 16–17-year-olds might simply follow their parents’ vote or get swept up by social media fads. But evidence suggests young people are quite independent: they have diverse political attitudes and don’t automatically all support one party. In Brazil and Austria, including teens did not advantage any single candidate or policy. Moreover, engaging citizens at 16 can build lifelong habits: researchers find that when people start voting earlier, they are more likely to remain active voters as adults.

In the end, the question is both practical and symbolic. Allowing 16-year-olds to vote would immediately expand Nepal’s electorate by well over a million people, injecting fresh perspectives into politics. As one Nepali youth policy paper urges, “it is high time we brought this issue to the table with necessary revision in our legal arrangements.” For a country whose median age is around 27 and where the younger half of society often feels left behind, the debate is likely to continue. If Nepal chooses to follow the example of Austria, Scotland, Brazil, and others, it could empower a generation to make their voices heard – possibly strengthening democracy along the way.