Political stability in Nepal remains elusive, with 14 governments formed in 17 years.
The recent spontaneous surge in pro-monarchy rallies across the country brings to the surface the deep political divisions surrounding the Nepalese constitution, adopted in September 2015 and acclaimed as “the world’s best”. The demand for the reinstating of the monarchy, abolished in 2008, has been growing recently with youth waving the national flag and chanting, "Come king, save the country". On 28 March, a pro-monarchy demonstration turned violent, resulting in two deaths as well as damage to public and private property. Ruling pro-republic parties blamed former King Gyanendra Shah and urged the government to take action against him for allegedly “conspiracy” to overthrow the federal democratic republic. Demonstrators claimed police provoked violence by firing tear-gas shells.
The Constitution was hurriedly proclaimed after a constituent assembly, elected in 2008, failed to draft the document. It officially abolished the monarchy without any debate. Acrimonious disputes persisted after the election of a second assembly in 2013. Political stability under the new constitution remains elusive, with 14 governments formed in 17 years since 2008, each failing to deliver promises of reforms. This, combined with widespread corruption, chaos and scandals involving most top leaders, has fueled popular discontent - against the political parties and the republic. While ruling and opposition politicians lead opulent lifestyles with state perks, the lives of ordinary people have seen no significant change. Nepal is listed as one of the world’s most corrupt countries and is on the grey list of money laundering. Every day, thousands of young people migrate abroad for jobs.
The constitution legitimised the abolition of the monarchy, introduced federal restructuring, and provided an exhaustive list of rights and freedoms. One of the several principal fault lines is the executive structure. The president is the head of state, while the prime minister is an executive chief elected by parliament. There are serious reservations about this form of government. Pushpa Kamal Dahal, chairman of the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist Centre, the third largest party in parliament and the main opposition leader, is demanding a directly elected presidential system. Others have proposed a directly elected prime minister with cabinet ministers chosen among experts. Pro-monarchists want a space for the ousted king. Even some who are not ardent monarchists argue that having one king is preferable to having several 'kings' under the republic - referring to the party leaders who dominate their political parties like their personal fiefdoms, denying internal democracy.
Both ruling and opposition parties appear to realise the constitution's flaws. In July 2024, the Nepali Congress Party, the largest in parliament, and the Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist, the second largest, formed a new government, pledging to provide stability and amend the constitution. However, these pledges remain unfulfilled. Amending the constitution is like opening a Pandora's Box, as divisive and contentious issues will inevitably arise. The ruling parties have not disclosed the specific amendments they have in mind. Beyond the debate over the form of government, many question the rationale of federal restructuring, which created three layers of government - federal, provincial and local. Some parties want to scrap federalism altogether, while others want the financially unsustainable provincial structures eliminated. Central leaders in Kathmandu are reluctant to share powers with either provinces or local governments and have denied them the necessary resources or support. Other fault lines include electoral reforms, the judiciary and various government structures. Some even propose reverting to the 1990 constitution, which established a Westminster model of parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarchy.
The federal republic undoubtedly enjoys constitutional and legal legitimacy. However, its public legitimacy has come into serious question. A logical path forward for the current regime is to address the discontent without excluding any forces. As public anger and frustration grow, leaders must prioritise serving the people rather than acting as new kings. If bad governance, rampant corruption and poor service delivery persist, the political instability is likely to worsen, ultimately benefiting the former king.
Janardan Raj Sharma is a Kathmandu-based political expert
