Why the monarchy still sways Nepal’s republic

Following the uprising of 8-9 September, the Nepal Army commenced a series of consultations concerning the transition process, during which the potential reinstatement of the monarchy was reportedly under consideration. 

However, former King Gyanendra Shah declined to pursue this option without a consensus among the political parties. This information was conveyed by Madhav Kumar Nepal, a former Prime Minister and a notable critic of the monarchy, in a newspaper article.

The former king, for his part, delivered his annual Dasain message to the nation on 28 September. He emphasised, among other points, that the younger generation constitutes the foundation of the nation’s future. 

‘Only the patriotic spirit, energy, and innovative thinking inherent in them can guide the nation toward strength, prosperity, and self-reliance. Let us reflect upon ourselves in the mirror of our country,’ he said. ‘Our political endeavours have often focused on destruction. Now, our initiatives should aim not at ruin but at improvement.’

Seventeen years after Nepal abolished its monarchy and became a federal secular democratic republic, the monarchy still influences the country’s political scene, mainly because of the persistent weaknesses of democratic institutions.

Throughout much of its modern history, Nepal’s political landscape was controlled by the monarchy. During the partyless Panchayat system (1960-1990), the palace was consistently criticised for its authoritarian rule. However, it presented itself as the defender of national unity and sovereignty, especially against Indian influence.

The 1990 People’s Movement transitioned Nepal into a constitutional monarchy. However, this period was marred by persistent instability, including the outbreak of a Maoist insurgency in 1996 and a royal palace massacre five years later. 

By 2005, when the new king, Gyanendra, assumed full control, detaining politicians and restricting press freedoms, the monarchy’s legitimacy was already under scrutiny.

The mass movement of 2006 resulted in the end of royal rule, leading to the official abolition of the 240-year-old Shah dynasty in 2008. Supporters of a republic saw this as the outcome of years of activism. In contrast, royalists viewed it as the sudden dismantling of an institution they believed had united Nepal.

The new political framework aimed to promote stability, prosperity, and inclusion. However, Nepal has seen over 14 different governments in 17 years. Divided by factionalism, political parties have often focused on overthrowing rivals instead of effective governance.

Widespread corruption persists. Infrastructure projects frequently face delays. Millions of young Nepalis leave the country to find jobs, resulting in the loss of many of the nation’s most talented individuals. The common belief that politicians amass wealth while ordinary citizens struggle has caused deep disillusionment. This serious situation led Nepal’s Generation Z to protest in the streets.

Within this broader context, for many, the monarchy has reemerged as a symbol of stability. To some, the king signifies unity that goes beyond partisan divisions. To others, the last Hindu monarch represents cultural continuity amid secular and federalist upheavals.

Royalist demonstrations in Kathmandu have mobilised tens of thousands. However, electoral support remains limited. The leading pro-monarchy party, the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP), secured merely about 6 percent of the vote in the 2022 elections. 

Major political parties remain steadfast in their commitment to republicanism, and Nepal’s younger, globally connected population broadly identifies with democracy, despite frustrations with its shortcomings.

Remembrances of King Gyanendra’s authoritarian rule serve as strong reminders of why the monarchy was abolished. However, this memory is gradually being replaced by more recent events. 

PUBLIC IMPATIENCE

Amid dissatisfaction with political parties, a question has emerged about whether the country needs an institution that can enforce discipline. As a result, calls for the reinstatement of the king are not just about Mr Gyanendra Shah, but also reflect a broader desire for government that is stable, accountable, and respectful.

The influence of the monarchy extends into regional affairs. During the Cold War, the palace adeptly balanced relations between India and China, positioning itself as the guardian of Nepal’s sovereignty. 

It also carefully navigated pressures from the United States and the Soviet Union. Today, as Nepal faces pressures from New Delhi, Beijing and Washington, some royalists perceive the monarchy as a safeguard against external interference.

The 2015 blockade imposed by India impacted Nepal’s economy and led the country to seek closer comprehensive relations with China. As a result, India has adopted a more cautious approach toward Nepal’s republican leadership. 

China is viewed as supportive of centralised authority, in contrast to Nepal’s democratic institutions. There are perceptions that the United States, previously supportive of the monarchy, may once again consider it a stable partner.

Officially, India, China, the broader international community, and major donors continue to support Nepal’s post-2006 political order. At the same time, they observe ongoing discussions among Nepalis about the possibility of a constitutional monarchy within a democratic framework.

Following the recent unrest, some Nepalis believe that restoring the monarchy could create uncertainty for India and China, given Nepal’s complex political landscape. Others suggest that worries about perceived Western influence on the interim government through international NGOs might trigger serious soul-searching in New Delhi and Beijing.

Despite its limited mandate to hold elections on March 5, 2026, the interim government, led by former Chief Justice Sushila Karki, has an opportunity to start rebuilding public trust. Although the new government continues to enjoy popularity, there is evident public impatience regarding its delays in investigating corruption and misconduct by the previous leadership, as well as the incidents of killings, looting, and arson during the protests. 

The nation has been further unsettled by whispers of an impending and potentially more significant political upheaval prior to the upcoming elections.

Republicans believe that demonstrating the effectiveness of democracy is the best way to mitigate calls for a monarchy. However, if the leadership fails to address key issues such as corruption, unemployment, and institutional strengthening, it could further boost the monarchy’s influence – and potentially lead to its comeback.

Sanjay Upadhya is the author oand analyst based in the Unoited States. Originally posted here.