Submit your Article

People’s trust in the media is fast declining, if not hitting the rock bottom, already. As a professional journalist with no political affiliation, I have spent two decades in this field, witnessing both highs and lows of Nepali media industry. In the early years of my career, the media was all flourishing: newspaper circulation was rising, radio and television were booming, and college classrooms were filled with enthusiastic media students. Now, the trend has sharply reversed. 

The current state of Nepali media bears some superficial resemblance to American media from 1900 to the 1940s. During that period, US newspapers were characterized by partisan, sensationalism, public criticisms over media performances, abuse of media power and growing concerns about the media’s negative impact on democracy. In response to these issues, American educator Robert Hutchins was appointed to lead a blue-ribbon panel to study the challenges facing US media. 

This piece broadly explores the current crisis of credibility in the media, the government’s attempt to control the press and what a wise and transparent approach to media regulation should look like. We must openly acknowledge that public trust in us is eroding due to a multitude of factors.

Only by first admitting this can we begin to rebuild the trust. At the heart of the media’s current crisis lies a widespread violation of journalistic ethics. Financial struggles are already a serious concern. But if journalists commit to upholding ethical standards, public criticism can at least be reduced, if not entirely silenced. 

It is not only digital platforms which are flouting journalistic codes of conduct. Traditional media, which pride themselves on being part of the mainstream, are also flagrantly violating ethical norms, further fueling public distrust. The erosion of confidence in media is not unique to Nepal; it is a global trend that began in the early 2000s and it continues to deepen. A recent report by the Reuters Institute revealed that only 40 percent of people trust the media. The silver lining, however, is that this figure has not declined over the past few years.

 In fact, trust in news has remained stable for the third consecutive year, even though it is still four percentage points lower than it was at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, public trust in the media continues to erode gradually. For instance, in recent years, the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority(CIAA) has filed cases against more than half a dozen journalists, alongside government officials, for their alleged involvement in corruption and irregularities. Meanwhile, people are struggling to distinguish between news, views and advertisement and paid content.   

Another problem is the structural weakness of Nepali media houses. The ongoing economic crisis is forcing many media outlets to carry out mass layoffs, severely weakening newsrooms. This has not only affected field-based reporting but also undermined the gate-keeping—selecting, filtering and refining the news before it reaches the public. As a result, ordinary citizens are increasingly questioning the accuracy, balance and credibility of the news they consume.

One of the most corrosive issues in Nepali journalism today is the political affiliation of journalists. Many spend more time on social media than in the newsroom, either defending their preferred political parties or attacking their rivals. The level of political alignment among journalists has reached an alarming level. People no longer trust content produced by those who openly align with political parties and shape their social media presence accordingly. Journalism is being misused as a stepping stone for political appointments or personal financial gains. 

Professional journalists are facing pressure not just from political actors but from their own colleagues affiliated with political parties or power centers. If a journalist publishes critical news about these parties or centers, affiliated colleagues often retaliate by undermining or attacking the former. Journalists who maintain independence are finding it increasingly difficult to survive in such a hostile environment.

Another growing problem is the media’s overreliance on social media content, due in large part to the decline in field reporting. This has led to a troubling trend: journalists often use unverified social media posts as the basis for news stories. Recently, a prominent journalist published a report based on rumors circulating online. 

Although filing a cybercrime case against him was unjustified, the video content he produced was clearly problematic and damaged the credibility of the media outlet involved. Those in power are now using such incidents as a pretext to clamp down on the media. Several news stories based on unchecked social media information have sparked controversy. Even worse, there is a growing reluctance among media houses to acknowledge mistakes or issue timely corrections.  

Due to these ethical lapses, all three branches of the state—the executive, legislature and the judiciary—believe that the media should be tightly regulated. The problem is further complicated by the inability of the politicians to distinguish between professional news content and personal social media posts. On that basis, they are attempting to suppress independent journalism, especially as it continues to expose corruption and irregularities. With corruption at an all-time high and politicians and government officials implicated, the media has effectively become their enemy.

Every draft of media-related laws introduced by successive governments directly contravenes the international treaties and convention to which Nepal is a party, and also violates the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and expression. There is now rhetoric within the parliament in favor of restricting the media, while the executive branch is employing various means to jail journalists. The judiciary, once considered a last resort for journalists seeking justice, is letting journalists down, more often than not.

The judiciary plays a vital role in safeguarding freedom of speech, expression and the press by checking the executive’s attempts to impose suppressive laws. Historically, Nepal’s judiciary upheld these principles, from the Panchayat era to King Gyanendra’s direct rule. Unfortunately, the current reality is quite the opposite. 

The judiciary has become more restrictive toward press freedom, emboldening those who wish to curtail it. Courts are now misusing the contempt of court provision to harass journalists and even issuing orders to remove published news content in a clear violation of constitutional norms. 

The media fraternity itself is partly to blame for this situation, having failed to support the enactment of a clear and fair contempt of court law. It is ironic that during times of autocracy, Nepali media stood firmly in defense of press freedom, but in the republican era, that commitment appears to be wavering. A close examination of recent bills related to the media, social media and information technology reveals that the government’s aim is control, not regulation. These efforts undermine the principles of responsible journalism and the social responsibilities of the media. 

As I conclude this piece, I return to the Hutchins Commission report of 1947. To address media shortcomings, the US did not control the press, doing so would have violated the First Amendment, which explicitly states, “Congress shall make no law, abridging the freedom of the press.” Instead, the focus was placed on promoting ethical standards and media accountability. In our context, any attempts to control the media would violate the 2015 constitution and international treaties and conventions to which Nepal is a party. 

Those in power must understand that ethical reform is a far more effective tool than legal coercion for addressing shortcomings of the media. At the same time, collaboration between private media, academic institutions and the government can help find solutions. If necessary, a powerful commission similar to Hutchins Commission can be formed. The state can take a range of non-intrusive measures to promote ethical standards without interfering in press freedom.

The executive, the judiciary and the legislature must urgently abandon their current restrictive mindset. Attempts to control the media will not resolve its shortcomings; it will make the matter worse. We in the media must also recognize that public criticism of our work is both real and justified, and we must act responsibly.

Former President Bidya Devi Bhandari has announced her return to active politics under the ruling CPN-UML, marking a significant shift in Nepal’s political landscape. 

She confirmed renewing her party membership, which she had relinquished after assuming the presidency following the promulgation of the in 2015 constitution.

Speaking at an event organized by the Madan Bhandari Foundation, a party think tank named after her late husband, she declared, “Now I am reunited with the UML as a member of this family, and I feel proud of this.” Her announcement comes after a recent high-profile visit to China and a series of nationwide tours aimed at reconnecting with party cadres.

Her political resurgence has stirred tensions within the UML, particularly with Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and his close allies, including senior leaders Pradeep Gyawali and Shankar Pokharel, who have openly opposed her return. 

This mirrors the earlier controversy when former Vice President Nanda Kishor Pun rejoined the CPN (Maoist Centre) amid similar criticisms. The situation raises pressing questions about the party’s future leadership. 

Will Oli peacefully transfer power to Bhandari, or will the two clash for control in upcoming party elections? Reports suggest Bhandari is positioning herself as a unifying leader, citing Oli’s health concerns and internal party divisions, while also presenting herself as a figure capable of bridging Nepal’s fractured communist factions.

Oli has reportedly urged Bhandari to delay her public announcement to avoid fueling factionalism, but she insisted on clarifying her stance ahead of the UML’s statute convention, arguing that transparency was necessary. Her return could disrupt the ambitions of second-tier leaders like Ishwar Pokhrel and Bishnu Poudel, who were seen as potential successors to Oli. Given her stature as a former president, her late husband’s enduring legacy, and her nationwide political outreach, analysts suggest she could dominate the party for the next decade if she secures the presidency.

Bhandari has vowed to strengthen the UML into a decisive force ahead of the 2027 elections, emphasizing that internal unity could secure the party a majority. Her reentry also carries geopolitical implications, as both India and China closely monitor her political trajectory. While Beijing welcomed her during her recent visit, where she met senior Chinese Communist Party officials, Delhi has historically viewed the UML with skepticism, preferring instead to engage with Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal. Striking a diplomatic tone, “India and China’s socio-economic progress inspires us. We must strengthen ties with both to build mutually beneficial partnerships,” said Bhandari.

Her return has sparked debate over the ethical implications of former heads of state reentering partisan politics, though no legal barriers prevent her from doing so. Critics question whether her ambitions align with democratic norms, while supporters argue that her experience and legacy make her a stabilizing force for the UML. As the party prepares for internal elections and the next general elections, Bhandari’s resurgence promises to reshape Nepal’s political dynamics, with repercussions extending beyond the UML to the broader balance of power in the region.

Following pressure from opposition parties, the government formed a probe panel to investigate the visit-visa scam. However, the move has failed to satisfy key opposition parties, including the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) and Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP). These parties argue that instead of a panel led by former Chief Secretary Shankar Das Bairagi, who himself is under scrutiny by the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority, a parliamentary probe committee should have been formed. 

Despite these criticisms, the panel has begun its investigation, though public expectations remain low due to past failures in implementing such committees’ recommendations. Nevertheless, the panel’s formation has helped the CPN (Maoist Center) save face. For now, discussions about a potential government change have subsided, with both opposition and Nepali Congress (NC) leaders refraining from further statements. However, given past unpredictability, the situation warrants close monitoring.

Meanwhile, the Janata Samajbadi Party Nepal (JSP-N), led by Upendra Yadav, has decided to withdraw its support from the KP Sharma Oli-led government, in which the Nepali Congress is a key coalition partner. While this move is unlikely to destabilize the government, the JSP-N justified its decision by citing the administration’s failure to ensure good governance, amend the constitution, and initiate economic reforms.

In parliamentary developments, the House of Representatives (HoR) has endorsed the budget for the next fiscal year, pending approval from the National Assembly. Opposition parties and independent lawmakers have protested, alleging that a significant portion of the budget has been allocated to the constituencies of top leaders from major parties.

On the political front, the RSP celebrated its third anniversary this week, with its chairperson, Rabi Lamichhane, who is currently in police custody, issuing an appeal to party cadres. The party is now focusing on expanding its activities nationwide.

The ruling CPN-UML, meanwhile, is preparing for its statute convention. Party Chairperson KP Sharma Oli has been tasked with drafting the political document, while Vice-chairperson Bishnu Poudel will handle statute-related issues, and General Secretary Shankar Pokharel will oversee organizational matters. A proposal to impose a 70-year age limit and a two-term cap for the party chair is under discussion, a contentious point, given Oli’s age (74). In a recent public statement, Oli dismissed the debate as irrelevant. Separately, the party has revoked disciplinary actions against Binda Pandey and Usha Kiran Timalsina, who had been penalized for criticizing the party’s acceptance of business donations for its office construction.

In legal developments, former prime minister, Madhav Kumar Nepal, appeared before the Special Court after the CIAA filed a corruption case against him over the Patanjali land scam. Released on bail, Nepal claims the case is politically motivated, an allegation Prime Minister Oli denies.

The Election Commission is preparing for upcoming by-elections in select constituencies and local bodies. After consulting with Prime Minister Oli this week, the government is expected to announce election dates soon. Oli is also set to visit Spain starting Saturday, with a potential trip to India afterward. Notably, India has yet to extend a formal invitation to Oli, despite his over year-long tenure as prime minister, a delay that remains unexplained.

On the policy front, the Supreme Court has issued an interim order barring government agencies from imposing restrictions on ride-sharing services. Under pressure from transport syndicates, the Gandaki provincial government has paused its plan to legalize ride-sharing. The court has also urged transport entrepreneurs to avoid disruptive strikes.

In the energy sector, Nepal has withdrawn the ‘take and pay’ provision from its budget following pressure from independent power producers. This provision, related to power purchase agreements with private developers, was a last-minute concession after the Nepali Congress (NC) intervened.

Within the NC, senior leader Shekhar Koirala continues pushing party president Sher Bahadur Deuba to hold the general convention before the 2027 elections. Koirala and Gagan Kumar Thapa fear that delaying the convention until after the polls could allow Deuba, who is set to become prime minister before the elections, to influence the outcome.

In foreign affairs, Nepal has paused its evacuation plan for citizens in Israel following the Iran-Israel ceasefire. At Nepal’s request, India has assisted in repatriating Nepalis from Iran, with six out of 16 evacuees already returned. Meanwhile, around 1,000 Nepalis in Israel have registered to return, but the government has slowed the evacuation process.

Finally, Nepal and India held productive talks on security and defense cooperation, covering joint military exercises, disaster relief, and personnel exchanges. While Indo-Nepal defense ties have remained strong over the past 70 years, Nepal has also recently deepened its defense collaboration with China.

The Donald Trump administration is yet to decide the fate of the ongoing projects under MCC. 

Issuing a press statement, the US Embassy in Kathmandu said:  “In February 2025, the Secretary of State approved a specific exception to the 90-day pause on US foreign assistance for the MCC Nepal Compact, while the US government review on US foreign assistance continues.” 

Under this exception, the MCC Nepal Compact is authorized to continue with full implementation. MCC and the US mission in Nepal continue to engage stakeholders in support of a constructive outcome of the review, the statement said.

The US. Embassy added MCC is working closely with the Ministry of Finance and MCA-Nepal to ensure that the activities undertaken or initiated under the compact, including potential new obligations, are aligned with US and Nepal’s priorities and ensure transparency, sound governance, effective delivery, and prudent risk management.

The US Embassy also reaffirmed America’s commitment to its bilateral relationship with Nepal and supporting the Nepali people through efforts that promote prosperity and long-term economic resilience. 

The invention of the printing press by German inventor Johannes Gutenberg in the mid-15th century revolutionized the mass distribution of knowledge and information, significantly transforming the practice of politics. More than five centuries later, we are witnessing a similar technological upheaval with the explosive rise of generative artificial intelligence (AI), which is reshaping every sphere of society, including politics and democracy, at an even greater and more profound scale. While the Gutenberg press enabled the spread of knowledge, generative AI can not only disseminate information but also produce vast volumes of text, video, audio and images without human input. 

However, unlike previous communication technologies of the past 500 years, AI is a double-edged sword for democracy. Used responsibly, it can strengthen democratic systems. Misused, it could seriously undermine them. The impact of AI on democracy is complex and multifaceted. When harnessed properly, AI can enhance civic engagement, voter education, governance, election transparency and integrity. Democratic governments can use AI to solicit public input on policy matters or gather feedback during decision-making processes. Around the world, AI is transforming election campaigns and automating electoral procedures. In Nepal, the government could use AI-enabled platforms to gather public feedback on its proposed AI policies and regulations. AI can also serve as a tool to combat fake news, disinformation and misinformation which undermine democratic institutions and erode public trust. Moreover, AI has the potential to reduce election costs for both the state and political parties, minimizing the influence of money and muscle in shaping voting behavior.

At the same time,  AI also presents serious threats to democracy. Deep fakes, AI-generated content that convincingly mimics real people and events, are already blurring the lines between truth and fake.  In Nepal, a flood of AI-generated misinformation is spreading across social media, targeting politicians and political parties, and eroding public trust in the political system. Unfortunately, there has been little research or public debate on this issue, even as malicious actors continue to exploit these tools to manipulate opinion.

There is no concrete data yet on the extent of misinformation and disinformation in Nepal’s 2017 and 2022 elections. However, it is clear that these issues will significantly affect future polls. Candidates with greater financial and technological resources are likely to benefit disproportionately. This will widen the gap between the powerful and the under-resourced.

In the recent 2024 and 2025 elections in countries like India, the US, Germany and across South Asia, AI-generated false content was widely circulated to influence voters. While high levels of digital literacy in some of these democracies may have mitigated the impact, countries like Nepal, with lower digital literacy, remain highly vulnerable to such tactics. Additionally, Nepal faces the risk of Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (FIMI), as observed in recent elections in India, the US and Taiwan, due to its geopolitical factors and the preference of big powers over one party over other to advance their strategic interests. Some signs of FIMI were observed during the debate over the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) between 2019 and 2022. However, this remains to be independently verified.

Due to low digital literacy, many in Nepal are unable to recognize AI-generated fake content which shapes public opinion and even influences top politicians. For instance, senior leader Bam Dev Gautam once called on Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli to resign based on a fake video. In such a context, AI is more likely to exacerbate democratic vulnerabilities unless strong regulation is put in place. 

Deliberations are underway across the world about AI governance and regulation. While the European Union, Germany and the United Kingdom have made some progress, even their approaches are struggling to keep pace with the rapid evolution of AI. In 2024, the United Nations emphasized the need for a global AI regulatory body. A UN report noted that if AI-related risks grow more severe and concentrated, the world may need a stronger international institution with monitoring, enforcement and accountability powers.

Nepal is still in the early stages of AI governance. Even though AI adoption in sectors like health, education and governance is increasing, the unchecked use of AI for spreading misinformation has been a concerning issue for the country. Although the government has drafted the National Artificial Intelligence Policy, 2025, public awareness has remained low. Feedback from stakeholders has also been mixed. The policy envisions establishing a National AI Council, AI Regulatory Body and an AI Excellence Center.  However, there has been delay in preparing legal and institutional frameworks to set up these institutions. Moreover, the draft policy misses some crucial aspects of AI regulation.

Globally, companies like Microsoft, Amazon and Google dominate the market for cloud computing resources used to train and deploy AI models. In Nepal, AI systems are likely to be controlled either by government agencies or by corporate entities close to power. In this context, time has come to discuss the idea of publicly-owned AI, developed and managed for the collective good. We must also begin discussions on creating a democratic, robust and transparent institution to govern AI in the national interest.

To make this a reality, the government must invest in AI capacity-building, including training human resources capable of leading AI governance. To reduce the harms and maximize the benefits of AI in democratic systems, state institutions must act now. In particular, the Election Commission should develop specific policies and infrastructure to safeguard upcoming elections from AI-enabled threats and malign actors seeking to erode democracy.

China has established the International Organization for Mediation (IOMed), marking it the world’s first intergovernmental legal body dedicated to resolving international disputes through mediation. The signing ceremony, held last week in Hong Kong, saw the participation of Nepal’s Foreign Minister Arzu Rana Deuba, alongside around 400 high-level representatives from 85 countries spanning Asia, Africa, Latin America and Europe.

Designed to function similarly to the International Court of Justice and the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, IOMed is positioned as a potential alternative to the World Trade Organization (WTO). China has actively encouraged Nepal to join the organization at the earliest. During a sideline meeting at the event, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi expressed his hope that Nepal would soon become a member, emphasizing the opportunity to jointly contribute to enhancing global governance.

While Minister Deuba did not offer any commitment to being a member-state, Nepal’s participation in the event is meaningful. Observers say it signals that Nepal could join the Chinese initiative in future. 

According to Xinhua, China’s state-run news agency, Wang Yi noted that more than 80 countries and nearly 20 international organizations sent representatives to the ceremony. He highlighted that this strong turnout demonstrates broad international support for mediation as a dispute-resolution mechanism, one that aligns with the interests of developing countries and adheres to the principles of the UN Charter.

The organization operates across three key areas. First, it provides mediation services for disputes between states, submitted by mutual consent. Official documents explain that such disputes must not be excluded by a concerned state through a formal declaration, nor may they involve a third state without its prior approval.

Second, IOMed facilitates mediation for commercial or investment disputes between a state (or an international organization) and private entities from another state, again requiring mutual consent. Third, it offers mediation for disputes arising from international commercial relationships between private parties.

China began laying the groundwork for IOMed in 2022, collaborating with like-minded nations to issue a joint statement. From South Asia, Sri Lanka and Pakistan are among the founding members, alongside Algeria, Belarus, Cambodia, Cameroon, China, Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Indonesia, Laos, Madagascar, Serbia, Sudan, Thailand and Zimbabwe.

The organization promotes mediation as a flexible, cost-effective and efficient means of resolving disputes, emphasizing a party-driven approach. Chu Kar-kin, a member of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies, in an interview with The Global Times, described IOMed as a “new chapter in global dispute resolution,” underscoring its role in fostering peaceful and harmonious settlements.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang reiterated China’s longstanding commitment to resolving differences through mutual understanding, dialogue and win-win cooperation.

Tian Feilong, a law professor at Minzu University of China, told Global Times that IOMed reflects China’s traditional legal culture, which prioritizes consensus and reconciliation over adversarial litigation. This approach, he argued, strengthens international cooperation and social capital, distinguishing it from Western legal mechanisms rooted in confrontation.

He further noted that IOMed embodies the spirit of internationalism and the vision of a "community with a shared future for mankind," reinforcing rule-of-law principles in global governance. By championing mediation, China seeks to offer a more collaborative and inclusive model for resolving international disputes, aligning with its broader diplomatic philosophy.

Seventeen years ago, on this day, then Home Minister Krishna Prasad Sitaula was negotiating with King Gyanendra Shah to ensure a smooth transition from monarchy to republic. The following day—May 29, 2008—the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly (CA) decided to abolish Nepal’s 249-year-old monarchy.

Since then much water has flowed under the Bagmati bridge, yet royalist forces are now mobilizing for what they call a “decisive movement” to restore the monarchy and Hindu state. Meanwhile, republican forces are preparing to celebrate Jestha 15 (May 29) as Republic Day, showcasing their strength. With royalist groups gearing up for a “final showdown” and the CPN-UML-led republican camp vowing to counter them, there are fears of potential violence in Kathmandu.

On Tuesday, top royalist leaders met with a group of editors to assure their upcoming protests would remain peaceful and non-violent. Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) Chairperson Rajendra Lingden said: “Our Kathmandu-centric protests, beginning May 29, will be a form of civil disobedience—peaceful and non-violent.” He also urged the press to objectively monitor their protests to ensure accountability if violence erupts.

The previous royalist protest in Kathmandu on March 28 had turned violent, resulting in two deaths, vandalism of businesses, and an arson attack on Annapurna Media Network. Royalist forces blame government agencies for the violence.

Lingden also criticized Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli’s recent call to his cadres to “seize Kathmandu Valley for a few hours,” on May 29, warning that such remarks could incite unrest. The RPP chairman was joined by veteran royalist leaders Kamal Thapa, Navaraj Subedi, and Keshar Bahadur Bista. They all emphasized their commitment to peaceful protest while demanding their constitutionally protected right to protest. 

There is growing curiosity about the scale, influence, and sustainability of the royalist movement. Why are they so confident this time? Kamal Thapa, chairman of Rastriya Prajatantra Party-Nepal, said: “After 2006, this is the first time all parties and groups advocating for monarchy and a Hindu state have united.” He claimed 45 parties and factions—led by Panchayat-era leader Subedi—have joined the movement, capitalizing on what they see as the most favorable political climate in 17 years. The upcoming royalist protest follows a series of consultations with former king Gyanendra, who has increasingly encouraged supporters through public statements. Recently, he held a luncheon meeting with senior royalist leaders to discuss the movement. Those who met him reported unusual confidence from Gyanendra about the monarchy's possible revival.

Asked how royalists plan to achieve their goals—including constitutional amendments requiring a two-thirds parliamentary majority—Thapa responded: “Our strategy is mass mobilization, pressuring the political establishment to negotiate.” He argued the same method was adopted during the political changes of 1990 and 2006.

However, government and major political parties are in no mood to talk with the royalist forces stating that those who will go against the constitution will be punished. Thapa said while the 2015 Constitution permits peaceful advocacy, the government is amending laws to criminalize pro-monarchy and Hindu-state agendas. 

Despite the show of unity, internal coordination remains unclear, particularly regarding leadership of the May 29 protest. RPP leaders admit that the psychological impact of March 28 violence has dampened morale of party cadres and monarchy supporters alike, which could potentially reduce the May 29 turnout. The government has filed cases against 61 individuals, including RPP leaders Rabindra Mishra, Dhawal Shumsher Rana, and protest “commander” Durga Prasai in connection to the March 28 violence. 

Still, royalist parties have vowed to continue their peaceful movement until their demands are met, but major parties remain unlikely to compromise. Their core demands include: restoration of the monarchy, reinstatement of Nepal as a Hindu state, and abolition of federalism.

Despite their call for restoration of the monarchy, not all royalist parties appear keen on putting Gyanendra back on the throne. Thapa said: “If there is a consensus among the political parties, Hridayendra (grandson of Gyanendra) could be king.”

With limited street power and minimal parliamentary influence, the royalist movement faces dim prospects. This time, the push seems driven by Gyanendra’s pressure rather than genuine momentum. The overall tone of Tuesda’'s interaction with editors revealed royalists’ persistent fear of another March 28-like violence, casting doubt on their ability to sustain a peaceful campaign.

The growing public support for the reinstatement of the monarchy and Hindu state reflects the failure of the current political system to meet people’s expectations in the aftermath of big political changes. It signals that the dramatic political changes between 2006 and 2015 have failed to deliver on the promises of stability, inclusion and economic opportunity. In less than a decade, Nepal transitioned from a monarchy to a federal democratic republic, from a Hindu kingdom to a secular state, and from an exclusionary to an inclusive governance framework. These changes raised hopes that democratic transformation would lead to economic progress and political stability. But nearly a decade later, those expectations have largely remained unfulfilled. The resulting disillusionment has opened the door for royalist forces to re-enter the political stage to advance their long-standing agendas. 

Departure from the past

While royalist protests are not new, recent developments mark a significant departure from the past. On March 9, former King Gyanendra returned to Kathmandu after a week-long vacation in Pokhara. An estimated 14,000 people gathered to welcome him at the airport—likely the largest pro-monarchy rally since the monarchy was abolished in 2008. This show of support alarmed mainstream political parties, especially in light of the rising unrest seen in other South Asian countries mainly like Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.  For the first time, major political parties see treating the royalist movement as a serious threat. On March 28, a large pro-monarchy demonstration in Kathmandu turned violent, resulting in two deaths and extensive property damage. The government responded with a crackdown, arresting several leaders of the movement. Although this initially weakened the protest, royalists have since regrouped and announced an indefinite protest in Kathmandu from May 29.

Why is the call for monarchy growing?

There are multiple reasons behind the growing surge of pro-Monarchy protests.

First, although all governments formed after the 2015 constitution came through free and fair elections, meeting the basic criterion for democratic legitimacy, they have failed to deliver governance, economic development and public services. Corruption, inefficiency and lack of accountability have disillusioned voters. Though the system has electoral legitimacy, it lacks performance legitimacy which is equally important for the sustainability of any political system.

There is growing disappointment with the key leaders of major political parties who were once admired for their role in bringing democracy. Many now see them as entrenched in power, having dominated politics for over three decades without delivering meaningful changes. After the promulgation of the constitution in 2015, the public hoped that political parties would reform, become more democratic internally, and respond better to people’s needs. 

However, those hopes were dashed. 

The 2022 election signaled a public desire for alternatives to traditional political forces. New parties and some independent candidates emerged with unexpected success. For instance, the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) became the fourth largest party in parliament with a platform focused on governance reform. In Kathmandu and Dharan, independent candidates won the mayoral race, defeating the common candidates of major political parties. Similarly, developments were seen in the Tarai-Madhesh region where new forces gained ground. However, these new parties could not form a government due to insufficient parliamentary numbers.  Feeling threatened, the traditional parties began consolidating power to resist these emerging forces. In July 2024, two largest parties in parliament, Nepali Congress (NC) and CPN-UML, formed a coalition government, promising political stability and development. However, the alliance has already become unpopular due to its failure to deliver on those promises.

Second, there was a hope that major political changes would open up economic opportunities for the people. However, those expectations have largely gone unmet, and instead, the country’s economy has further stagnated. While moderate economic growth might have helped support the transition to a republic, the economy has failed to gain momentum. Many believe that the federal structure further strained the nation’s resources, adding pressure to an already fragile economy. Though economy is not a determinant factor in any democracy, it does play a vital role to cement democratic values. 

One of the most pressing issues is the failure to create sufficient job opportunities within the country. As a result, large numbers of Nepalis are going abroad to seek jobs and quality education. Domestic universities, weakened by political interference, have seen a sharp decline in quality. Key sectors of the economy—agriculture, manufacturing and tourism—are underperforming. 

Third, after the adoption of the new constitution in 2015, people hoped that the chronic political instability that has plagued the country since 1990 would finally come to an end. It was widely believed that with political freedom secured, future governments would focus on social and economic development. But instead of evolving in line with the constitution, political parties continued to engage in power struggles, internal factionalism and the politicization of state institutions.  The focus is still on changing governments rather than improving governance. They are putting blame on the current electoral system stating that it would not allow a single-party majority. In a diverse country like Nepal,  we cannot and should not remove the Proportional Representation (PR) system.  But people are not convinced, especially since parties have failed to maintain stable governments even when holding majorities. This persistent instability has bred anger, disillusionment and frustration among the people. As a result, more are now willing to consider undemocratic alternatives, reflected in the growing support for pro-monarchy forces. 

Way forward for parties

This growing support for royalist forces reflects the deepening unpopularity of the major political parties. Former King Gyanendra, who had remained largely silent for years, has recently become more vocal about his intent to return to power, adding to the pressure on these parties.  Over the past few months, Nepal has witnessed an increasingly stark divide between pro-monarchy and pro-republic sentiments, something not seen since the abolition of monarchy in 2008. In response, the current government led by the first and second largest parties in parliament have taken a suppressive approach to deal with pro-Monarchy protests. Rather than resorting to repression, mainstream political parties must focus on delivering real results and addressing public grievances. This is the only suitable way to restore public trust and safeguard the existing political system. Miserable political and economic performances of the successive governments after 2015 or even earlier is the time factor behind the current scenario. Instead of delving into conspiracy theories,  deliver on the promises of stability, inclusion and economic opportunity.