Nepal’s nostalgia for monarchy is misplaced

A speech by Gyanendra Shah, who was deposed in 2008 emboldened monarchist forces to take to the streets. (File image)

By Anuj Arora

Fresh pro-monarchy rallies in Nepal have put the new republic on the defensive. A speech by Gyanendra Shah, who was deposed in 2008, on the eve of February 19, which is commemorated in Nepal as Democracy Day, calling on the public "to unite to save the country," emboldened monarchist forces to take to the streets.

Monarchists get a boost from governance failures

Monarchists argue that the country has been ruined by republican leaders, that it fared better under the monarchy, and that it can still be extricated from political turmoil by reinstating the monarchy. This argument seems to have gained traction. They are trying to cash in on growing public discontent due to frequent changes in leadership, rising corruption, poor service delivery, weakened institutions, and a lack of jobs, which in recent years has led to the exodus of youth to foreign countries for education and employment.

A recent protest on March 28 by monarchists even turned violent—at least two people were killed and scores were injured.

Meanwhile, the pro-monarchy demand, along with Nepal's return as a Hindu state, has prompted defenders of the republic to unite in order to save the system.

Though the 240-year-old dynastic rule of the Shah kings was dismantled through a proclamation by a majority of an elected Constituent Assembly 17 years ago, the monarchy debate in Nepal has refused to die down.

In recent months, riding on the back of public disenchantment, monarchists have been attempting to discredit the republican system as a whole. While it is a fact that public discontent has grown, a return to the monarchy in Nepal is a lost cause and would undo various gains, such as secularism, inclusivity, fundamental rights, and freedom of speech, among others.

The gatherings at the two back-to-back monarchist rallies may have been modest, but not all attendees were pro-monarchy—some were simply expressing frustration with Nepal’s political class, which is widely seen as having failed the public.

The broader perception in Nepal is that the failure of the current political class should not be construed as the failure of the system. Some argue that a more functional system within the republican set-up can be explored, but reverting to the monarchy would mean a great leap backward.

Is a presidential system a viable alternative?

Pushpa Kamal Dahal, chairman of the CPN (Maoist Centre), is among the Nepali politicians who advocate for a directly elected presidential system. His Maoist party waged a 10-year war against the state in 1996 with a 40-point demand. One of those demands was a republican system, as the Maoists viewed the monarchy as the root cause of Nepal’s problems.

Overthrowing the monarchy was a progressive step. The promulgation of the Constitution was a step in the right direction, though it has shortcomings and there is ample room for amendments. But what monarchists are proposing is regressive—a return to dictatorial ways.

Om Parkash Aryal, a Supreme Court advocate and president of the Constitutional Lawyers’ Forum, backs Dahal’s proposal. “The presidential form of government, something akin to what exists in the U.S., would ensure a stable government for a fixed term—say, four or five years. Moreover, voters would know exactly who they are electing as president, unlike now, where they have no idea who will become prime minister when they cast their vote,” says Aryal.

Another major constitutional change is not practical

But for Nepal to adopt a new system, amendments to the 10-year-old Constitution would be required, needing a two-thirds majority in Parliament—a lengthy process in itself. Reforming the current system is a better approach than replacing it entirely.

Moreover, the current public discontent is not with the system itself, but rather with the failure of leaders to deliver. “While some may argue that a presidential system of governance could be the solution, this debate seems to stem from growing frustration,” says Sanjeev Satgainya, former editor of The Kathmandu Post and a columnist.

Nepal has experienced various forms of governance since its first taste of democracy in 1951. The fall of the Rana regime paved the way for Nepal to embrace multi-party democracy. However, in 1960, King Mahendra staged a coup and introduced the Panchayat system—a unitary form of governance in which the monarch held direct control. This system lasted for 30 years.

In 1991, the multi-party system was restored under a constitutional monarchy. However, government instability persisted, and corruption and misgovernance took root. Then, in 2001, King Birendra and most of his family were killed in a royal massacre. His brother, Gyanendra, ascended the throne, but his attempts to assume absolute power in 2005 led to massive protests in 2006. Two years later, an elected Constituent Assembly voted to abolish the monarchy. The 2015 Constitution transitioned Nepal into a democratic republic.

The Republic has made progress

Since 1990, Nepal has made steady progress on various fronts. The Maoist war in 1996 came as a setback for economic development, but it did help bring about some changes in terms of social and political rights. Several indicators since the 2015 Constitution also look promising, though progress may not have been as rapid as desired.

Democracy itself is a dynamic process, and the beauty of it is that it is self-correcting in nature. The very idea of monarchy in the new Nepal is regressive, as its power stems not from the will of the people but from the subjugation of the people. Hence, the focus in Nepal should be on making the current system functional.

After all, no system is perfect. Unstable governments are only part of the problem. The solution lies in stemming the growing disenchantment by implementing laws, major political parties giving up undemocratic ways, and empowering provincial governments. All this should be done sooner rather than later, as people are losing patience.

(Anuj Arora is a journalist based in Kathmandu.)

Views are personal, and do not represent the stance of this publication.