By Narayan Prasad Mishra
Our country’s political journey since the mid-19th century has been a long and arduous experiment with various systems of governance—each promising progress, justice, and prosperity but ultimately failing to deliver on these promises. From the autocratic Rana regime (1846–1951) to the turbulent years of party-led multiparty democracy, from the king’s Panchayat system to the republican structure following 2008, Nepal has undergone tests of monarchy, democracy, and revolutionary change. Yet, none have succeeded in creating a fair, inclusive, and accountable state. The result: a nation stuck in the mud of misrule, corruption, inequality, and growing public despair.
A History of Disappointment
The Rana regime was a brutal oligarchy, where power remained in the hands of a few, and the people were voiceless subjects. When the Ranas fell in 1951, hopes soared with the introduction of a constitutional monarchy and the establishment of democracy. But elections were delayed, governance remained weak, and the people saw little real change.
Then came the multiparty parliamentary system in 1959, which King Mahendra soon dissolved. He replaced it with the Panchayat system—a powerful monarchy masked as a “party-less democracy.” Although politically repressive, this system brought a level of stability and developmental progress, particularly in rural areas, with notable improvements in infrastructure and education. However, decision-making remained centralized around the palace and its loyalists.
The people revolted again in 1990, ushering in an entirely constitutional monarchy with multiparty democracy. But the elected parties quickly forgot their promises. Corruption soared, nepotism thrived, and political leaders focused more on power games than on people’s welfare. This failure of leadership paved the way for the Maoist insurgency, which led to the monarchy’s complete abolition and the declaration of a federal republic in 2008.
Since then, the political parties—left, right, and center—have misused democracy to serve their own interests. Coalition governments are built not on ideology or national interest, but on sharing ministries, like the spoils of war. Public resources are looted through syndicates of politicians, contractors, and bureaucrats. The judiciary is politicized, honest civil servants are sidelined, and qualified citizens are ignored in favor of party loyalists. The promised “New Nepal” has become a kleptocracy. The very system that was supposed to give voice to the people has instead drowned them in silence.
That is why Gen Z rose. They did not march under any party flag; they marched for their future. They demanded accountability and justice. What followed was an interim government under Prime Minister Sushila Karki—one that everyone knows was formed outside the constitution. The prime minister and her cabinet were not drawn from parliament, nor do they meet constitutional requirements. Yet this government insists that it cannot meet the demands of the revolution because “the constitution does not allow it.” Instead, it has simply called for an election to the House of Representatives, which had been dissolved as a direct result of the Gen Z revolution. That does not justify the dissolution of the House of Representatives. This seems to me a fruitless exercise, as it is unlikely to bring about any real change or meaningful departure from the past.
The Return of a Question
In recent years, something remarkable—and troubling—has started to happen. The streets are again echoing with demands for the return of the monarchy. For many, this is not because they idealize kingship but because every system that replaced it has brought more profound frustration. They ask: What did we really gain after becoming a republic? Are we truly free if our leaders are more oppressive than kings?
This is not a call for feudal nostalgia. It is a desperate question from people exhausted by betrayal. Among all the flawed systems our country has tried, monarchy—especially constitutional monarchy—appears, in hindsight, to have been less corrupt, less chaotic, and marginally more development-oriented. When no system works, the past begins to look like an option, not because it was ideal, but because everything since has been worse.
What Should We Do?
Our country stands at a dangerous but defining crossroads. The answer is not simply to go back to the monarchy or to defend the status quo. The country needs to reinvent a system that delivers for its people—fairly, transparently, and effectively. For that, several steps are urgent:
1. National Dialogue and Reassessment: Nepal needs a serious, inclusive national conversation about its political future. Should the monarchy return in a ceremonial form? Should the structure of governance be rebalanced to reduce party monopoly and restore public trust? All ideas must be on the table.
2. Reform the Political System: Democracy is not just about elections—it is about governance. Nepal must strengthen institutions, enforce accountability, and break the unholy nexus between politics and corruption. Laws must be applied equally, and meritocracy must replace favoritism.
3. Reintroduce a Head of State Above Party Politics: The absence of a neutral, stabilizing figure has deepened political polarization. A ceremonial monarch—or an elected non-partisan president—could offer symbolic unity, balance, and continuity in a nation torn by endless power struggles.
4. Invest in Civic Education: People must understand democracy beyond slogans. Education on civic rights, responsibilities, and the role of institutions is critical to ensuring that citizens demand better governance and reject manipulation.
5. Create a Technocratic Governance Layer: Ministers and bureaucrats should be appointed based on expertise and experience, not just loyalty to a party. Only then can development be planned, policies be implemented, and corruption be reduced.
The Way Forward
No system is perfect. But our history shows that when power is monopolized—by kings, parties, or revolutionaries—the people suffer. What we need is a system that limits the abuse of power, respects the rule of law, and prioritizes national interest over narrow politics. It must reward integrity, punish corruption, and ensure equal opportunity for all citizens—not just party insiders or connected elites.
Whether we choose to restore a constitutional monarchy, reform its current republic, or create a hybrid model, one truth remains clear: the system must serve the people, not enslave them. Otherwise, the country will continue its downward spiral—no matter what label its rulers wear.
The question is no longer monarchy versus republic. The real question is: When will the people of our country finally get a system that works for them?
Comments:
Leave a Reply