In recent days, a strong debate has resurfaced in Nepal’s political landscape: monarchy versus democracy. Nepal has a long history of monarchy, particularly under the Shah dynasty, which ruled the country for centuries until the introduction of an interim constitution in 2007. The swift and peaceful transition from monarchy to a democratic republic was remarkable. The last king of Nepal, Gyanendra Shah, stepped down and left the palace without resistance, marking a historic moment in the nation’s political evolution.
Following the abolition of the monarchy, the country embraced a republican democratic system, which was widely welcomed by the public. However, political parties have since struggled to maintain the trust of the people. The transition was marred by inefficiencies, broken promises and poor governance. One key issue has been the adoption of an inflated and disorganized government structure, which has proven both costly and ineffective. The socialist orientation of the constitution has also had unintended consequences for Nepal’s economy and overall development.
Additionally, while federalism was introduced to decentralize power, the central government has been unwilling to truly empower local governments. This has created overlapping responsibilities and financial burdens at both the federal and local levels. Given the country’s limited economic resources, it has been impossible to meet the high expectations raised during political campaigns. Political parties have often made unrealistic promises, leading to widespread disillusionment. Many Nepalis, in turn, have placed faith in these false assurances, often without access to accurate, fact-based information. The rise of social media has further enabled the spread of misinformation, deepening public confusion and distrust. These issues have played a major role in fueling public support for autocratic monarchists.
According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a monarch is a hereditary head of state with life tenure, whose powers range from symbolic to absolute. In the 21st century, the consolidation of inherited power and rule over the people is no longer acceptable. However, some monarchies continue to exist due to geopolitical factors. These monarchies tend to survive when they remain politically neutral, avoid scandals and maintain a limited ceremonial role. Unfortunately, Nepal’s monarchy has consistently failed in all these aspects.
Some monarchists have argued that Nepal should adopt a democratic monarchy and reinstate former King Gyanendra Shah. This is a baseless argument, rejected by most freedom-loving citizens. History shows that monarchs who seek absolute power are eventually forced to relinquish it or see it dramatically reduced. For instance, in 1920, King Christian X of Denmark dismissed his prime minister and government over a policy disagreement, which led to mass protests and a constitutional crisis. He was ultimately forced to back down. King Leopold III of Belgium spent five years in exile due to his refusal to comply with his government’s decisions.
The Shah dynasty in Nepal has never demonstrated a commitment to constitutional democracy. Instead, its kings repeatedly sought absolute power. Nepal's monarchy might have survived had King Gyanendra not staged a coup in 2005 to seize full control. This pattern of authoritarianism dates back further: King Mahendra executed a coup in 1960, dissolving democratic institutions and concentrating all power in his hands. King Birendra also maintained absolute rule through the Panchayat system, using political manipulation to hold onto power. Any credible historian can confirm that the Shah dynasty consistently pursued authoritarian governance.
Moreover, Nepal’s monarchy has been plagued by scandals—from the tragic royal massacre to allegations against Paras Shah involving illegal drug use, extrajudicial killings, sexual violence, extramarital affairs and ties to criminal networks. These controversies further eroded any moral legitimacy the monarchy once had.
The Shah dynasty has failed to govern Nepal effectively since the time of geographic unification under Prithvi Narayan Shah in 1768. After his reign, successive generations of the royal family were embroiled in internal power struggles, often marked by violence and betrayal. It was not uncommon for royal family members to conspire against or even kill one another in pursuit of power and personal gain. This violent legacy is one of many reasons why the Nepali people should not trust the monarchy or the Shah dynasty.
Even after the political reforms of the 1990s, the monarchy continued to act as an absolute authority, refusing to adapt to democratic norms. A large network of individuals benefited from the palace and the monarchical system, creating vested interest groups that further damaged the monarchy’s reputation. As a result, the institution lost the public’s trust,
The recent rise in pro-monarchy sentiments has negatively affected Nepal's progress toward prosperity and democratic development. Many Nepalis are understandably frustrated by ongoing political instability and economic hardship. However, this frustration has led some to overlook the value of democracy and entertain misguided notions of restoring the monarchy. There is no evidence that bringing back the monarchy would resolve even a fraction of Nepal’s current problems.
Certain political parties and crook networks have exploited pro-monarchy rhetoric to destabilize the democratic system and gain political advantage. Figures like Rabindra Mishra, Rajendra Lingden and Kamal Thapa appear to be leveraging this unrest to expand their influence. For them, whether the system is democratic or autocratic is irrelevant—they enjoy social, economic and political privileges either way. Their primary interest lies in gaining power, even if it means fueling division, protest or violence.
What the Nepali people truly desire is a prosperous nation where they can live freely and securely. Access to quality education, healthcare, public safety and a government that genuinely represents the people are the real needs of the moment. Yes, there is deep dissatisfaction with corruption, lack of opportunity, political instability and the unethical behavior of current leaders. But these issues are far more likely to be addressed within a democratic framework than under an autocratic monarchy.
The monarchy in Nepal was historically corrupt, repressive, autocratic and ineffective. Under its rule, people had no voice or freedom to speak out. Restoring such a system would be a step backward, not forward. Ultimately, Nepal’s future lies not in a return to monarchy but in strengthening its democratic institutions, promoting good governance and focusing on inclusive economic development.
