Nepal’s political landscape, long characterized by fragmentation and instability, is now facing even greater challenges as two opposing forces—pro-monarchy factions and republican groups led by the Socialist Front—prepare for a significant showdown.
Both sides have planned separate demonstrations on March 28 in the capital city of Kathmandu, underscoring a growing polarization that threatens to deepen the rift in the nation’s already fractured political environment.
The planned rallies highlight the widening divide between those advocating for the restoration of the monarchy and a Hindu state and those supporting the republican ideals that have defined the country since the monarchy’s abolition in 2008.
The pro-monarchy movement, though rallying behind nostalgic sentiments for the monarchy, is driven by more complex undercurrents of frustration with the current government.
It is less a sign of genuine affection for the monarchy itself—a once-revered institution now discredited in the eyes of many—and more an expression of the public’s growing discontent with the state of governance in Nepal.
If Nepal’s leaders continue to ignore the growing discontent of the public, they risk creating an opening for such forces to exploit the dissatisfaction and undermine the country’s democratic institutions.
Political analysts have raised alarms about the potential risks of such demonstrations, warning that they pose serious concerns for the government and security forces alike.
Historically, the monarchy in Nepal reigned for over 240 years before being abolished in 2008 by the first Constituent Assembly, marking the formal transition to a republican system.
Despite the passage of the 2015 Constitution, which was meant to solidify Nepal’s republican framework, the country has remained politically unstable.
Frequent changes in leadership, with 13 prime ministers in just 16 years, have undermined the promise of stability and reform. The lack of institutional continuity has compounded the country’s governance challenges.
A turning point in the current debate came on March 9, when former King Gyanendra Shah received a warm reception from a large crowd as he returned to Kathmandu from Pokhara.
This event stirred alarm among republican forces, who viewed it as a sign that the pro-monarchy movement was gaining momentum.
The renewed attention on the monarchy has not only caught the eye of domestic and international observers but has also provoked strong reactions from political leaders.
Maoist Center Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal Prachanda, for example, vehemently criticized Gyanendra, calling him a “murderer of brother” and a “statute thief,” referring to the infamous 2001 royal massacre that claimed the lives of King Birendra’s family.
Despite the vocal pro-monarchy movement, the republican forces, who control more than 90 percent of the seats in the federal and provincial legislatures, have strongly rejected any calls for the monarchy’s reinstatement or the establishment of a Hindu state.
These opposing forces remain locked in a battle of ideologies, with the future of the pro-monarchy movement largely dependent on the reactions of major political parties.
Republican leaders have ridiculed the former king, warning that his activism could result in the loss of even his limited privileges as a citizen, with some even challenging him to contest elections if he desires a political comeback.
Internally, the pro-monarchy movement is struggling with fragmentation and leadership issues. Durga Prasai, a key figure in the movement, has been accused by some of prioritizing personal recognition over broader unity, particularly in relation to his reluctance to work closely with the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP), which holds 14 seats in Nepal’s 275-member House of Representatives.
Additionally, efforts to unite pro-monarchy factions under the banner of the People’s Movement Committee, led by 87-year-old Nabaraj Subedi, reflect a desperate attempt to garner public support, but the movement’s coherence remains tenuous.
Observers, including some members of the Nepali Congress, argue that the rise of pro-monarchy sentiment is part of a broader public disenchantment with the state of affairs in Nepal.
Issues such as high unemployment, political instability, soaring inflation, and pervasive nepotism have contributed to a growing sense of dissatisfaction.
Many Nepalis feel that the promises made by the major political parties, including the Nepali Congress, CPN-UML, and the Maoist Center, have been unfulfilled.
These parties have been unable to deliver on key reforms, particularly the proper implementation of Nepal’s federal system, which was intended to decentralize power and give greater autonomy to local governments.
Instead, under leaders like former Prime Minister KP Oli, there has been a tendency to centralize authority, exacerbating public frustration.
For many pro-monarchy supporters, the exclusion of the king from Nepal’s political scene and the sidelining of the political system as a whole have failed to provide the country with the stability it needs.
Only by strengthening the democratic framework, ensuring effective governance, and fostering inclusivity can Nepal move forward and preserve the democratic gains it has achieved.
They view the former king as a unifying figure who could provide stability in a country caught between the competing interests of India and China. In their eyes, the restoration of the monarchy would serve as a pillar of national unity and security.
On the opposing side, the Socialist Front, which includes the Maoist Center, Unified Socialist, Janata Samajbadi Party, and the Communist Party of Nepal led by Netra Bikram Chand ‘Biplab,’ sees the March 28 demonstration as a direct challenge to the republican system.
They view it as an attempt by “reactionary forces” to undermine the country’s democratic foundations and restore regressive elements. The Socialist Front has vowed to protect Nepal’s republican setup and counter any forces seeking to revert to the past.
This political standoff serves as a stark reminder of the lessons learned from other countries, such as Bangladesh, where failures in governance and a failure to address public grievances allowed undemocratic forces to gain ground.
If Nepal’s leaders continue to ignore the growing discontent of the public, they risk creating an opening for such forces to exploit the dissatisfaction and undermine the country’s democratic institutions.
Nepal’s journey to democracy has been far from smooth, marked by political turbulence and setbacks. To safeguard the fragile democracy that has been built, it is imperative that Nepal’s political leaders recognize the importance of addressing the legitimate grievances of the people.
Only by strengthening the democratic framework, ensuring effective governance, and fostering inclusivity can Nepal move forward and preserve the democratic gains it has achieved.
The country cannot afford to ignore these lessons, as the future of Nepal’s democracy remains in the balance.
Comment