Spread the love

By Shashi P.B.B. Malla

Lately there was another opinionated piece which rejected monarchy out of hand.

Writing in The Kathmandu Post, Atindra Dahal, a professor at the Kathmandu School of Law pontificated that the talk of restoring the monarchy “is nothing more than an illusion” (Jan. 23).

Dahal did not have any logical arguments.

Above all, he confuses the absolute from the constitutional form of monarchy and thus his whole argument falls apart.

Monarchy originally meant ‘the rule of one’, and in times gone by they were the founding leaders of their nascent nations, like the great Prithvi Narayan Shah.

People didn’t question it, and generally there was a belief in the necessity or desirability of monarchy.

An extreme version of this was to believe in a monarch who actually ruled and did not merely reign, who had an absolute, perhaps divinely ordained, right to do so, and who acquired this right by heredity.

Times have changed and in Nepal, as in other parts of the world, there is no support for absolute monarchy – unlike what Dahal insinuates.

Instead after unilaterally abolishing the monarchy, we have had absolute autocrats who have run rough shod over the people’s aspirations and democratic institutions.

Dahal is also on the wrong track when he presents the false binary choice: democracy or monarchy.

The Nepali monarchists are for democracy and constitutional monarchy – i.e. a monarchy constrained by the limits of the Constitution and rule of law.

They ground their support in the general utility of the institution in the Nepali context.

They believe it is best to have a head of state who is above politics and does not have to compete for the role.

They also believe in the ruling family as the symbolic embodiment of the nation’s rich history, and not as Dahal contends “become a footnote in history books”.

Monarchy can also be seen as a ‘dignified element, as in Bagehot’s phrase, which legitimizes the authority of the state without the need for precise constitutions and justifying principles which would prove divisive. 

Constitutional Monarchy: A Check on Political Instability

The astute political commentator, Maj. Gen. (retd.) Binoj Basnyat strikes the nail on the head when he writes:

“Since Nepal became a federal republic in 2008, it has seen significant political instability, revealing around 13 to 14 different governments formed by shifting coalitions, none completing a full five-year term, highlighting frequent leadership changes, alliance breakdowns, coalition fragility, and executive paralysis . .  .

“This instability has damaged Nepal’s credibility – booth domestically and internationally” (Annapurna Express, 23-29 Jan).

What Maj.Gen. Basnyat doesn’t concede is that the institution of constitutional monarchy would have had a calming effect on and would have also supported the stability of the political system.

Another political commentator, Kamal Dev Bhattarai writing in the same journal, also laments the lack of political stability, but does not include constitutional monarchy in the political equation – and as a stabilizing force.

The writer can be reached at:

shashimalla125@gmail.com