Dr. Asis Mistry
Exactly
a decade ago, during my fieldwork on the bustling streets of Kathmandu, I
encountered a passer-by who identified himself as a staunch monarchist. He nostalgically
extolled the virtues of King Mahendra’s rule, declaring with unwavering
conviction that democracy in Nepal would not last beyond a decade. At the time,
his views seemed like the last echoes of a fading political order, but today,
his words resonate with startling relevance. The resurgence of pro-monarchy
activism in Nepal is not merely a nostalgic yearning for the past but a
profound response to the deepening crisis of democratic legitimacy.
Democracy in Decline: A
Decade of Disillusionment
Nepal’s
transition from monarchy to a federal democratic republic in 2008 was heralded
as a monumental shift toward inclusive governance and social justice. Yet,
nearly two decades later, the aspirations that fuelled the democratic
transition remain largely unfulfilled. Political corruption, institutional
decay, and the failure of successive governments to address the pressing
concerns of ordinary citizens have eroded public faith in democratic
institutions.
The
nation’s political landscape has been marred by the unchecked dominance of
three major political parties—Nepali Congress (NC), Communist Party of
Nepal-Unified Marxist-Leninist (CPN-UML), and Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist
Centre (CPN-MC). Their leadership, characterised by a revolving door of
oligarchic elites—Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, and Sher
Bahadur Deuba—has prioritised political manoeuvring over national interest.
Their repeated failure to ensure economic stability, curb corruption, and
promote good governance has led to widespread frustration, leaving the populace
disillusioned with the democratic process.
Kakistocracy in Action:
Governance for the Few
The
rise of pro-monarchy sentiment is not a rejection of democracy per se but an
outcry against what political theorists describe as kakistocracy—a system
governed by the least qualified and most corrupt individuals. Nepal’s
democratic experiment has been hijacked by self-serving leaders who have turned
governance into a theatre of nepotism, patronage, and exploitation. The
electorate, yearning for stability and order, finds itself trapped in a cycle
where political elites thrive while ordinary citizens languish.
Public
confidence in key democratic institutions—parliament, judiciary, and political
parties—has reached an all-time low. Scandals such as the Mahakali Treaty
debacle, land ordinance controversies, and the Bhutanese refugee scam have
reinforced the perception that Nepal’s democratic system serves the interests
of political elites rather than the public. In this vacuum of accountability,
pro-monarchy voices have emerged as an alternative narrative, promising a
return to order, stability, and national pride.
A ‘Five-Legged Dog’: The
Dysfunction of Nepal’s Political System
Nepal’s
post-monarchy political system resembles what can only be described as a
‘five-legged dog’—a structure that is inherently unstable and dysfunctional.
The power struggle between political parties has resulted in a fragmented
polity, where personal vendettas and political survival dictate governance.
This system, plagued by indecisiveness, corruption, and lack of vision, has
failed to meet the expectations of the public.
The
result is a population that feels alienated and marginalised—conditions that
historically breed a yearning for authoritarian stability. Pro-monarchy voices
are finding traction among these disillusioned citizens, many of whom view the
monarchy as a stabilising force amid political chaos. To them, King Gyanendra’s
rule, despite its flaws, represents a period when national identity,
sovereignty, and stability were prioritised.
The Myth of the ‘Golden
Age’ of Monarchy
Pro-monarchy
activism is often driven by the myth of the ‘golden age’—an idealised vision of
a time when the monarch was seen as the benevolent guardian of the nation.
However, this nostalgia ignores the structural inequalities and suppression
that characterised monarchical rule. While the monarchy may have provided a
semblance of stability, it was far from democratic or inclusive. Yet, in the
absence of genuine democratic accountability and transformative change, this
myth has gained renewed traction.
The
monarchists have skilfully tapped into public frustration, presenting the
monarchy as a viable alternative to the chaos of contemporary politics. Social
media platforms, street protests, and public demonstrations have become the
battleground for this renewed activism, where pro-monarchy voices frame their
narrative as a struggle to ‘save the nation’ from corrupt politicians.
International Dynamics
and Regional Implications
The
resurgence of pro-monarchy activism in Nepal cannot be viewed in isolation from
the region’s geopolitical realities. Nepal’s strategic position between India
and China makes it a hotspot for competing regional influences. Both nations
have historically maintained close ties with Nepal’s monarchy, viewing it as a
stabilising force that could safeguard their respective strategic interests.
The
prospect of a monarchic revival, therefore, raises questions about the future
trajectory of Nepal’s foreign policy. While India and China may not overtly
advocate for the return of the monarchy, they are likely to engage with
pro-monarchy movements if such forces gain significant traction. This
geopolitical chess game adds another layer of complexity to Nepal’s fragile
democratic transition.
Is Monarchy a Democratic
Alternative?
It
is essential to recognise that monarchy cannot be an alternative to democracy.
By its very nature, monarchy is an undemocratic institution that centralises
power and undermines participatory governance. However, in a democratic system
where corruption, inequality, and inefficiency persist, nostalgia for monarchy
thrives.
If
pro-monarchy forces succeed in galvanising public sentiment, the issue should
be addressed through democratic means—possibly through a referendum. A
ceremonial monarchy, akin to the models in the United Kingdom or Japan, could
serve as a symbolic head of state while preserving Nepal’s democratic
institutions. However, this would require constitutional amendments and an
extensive public mandate, neither of which is easily achievable.
The Way Forward: A
Democratic Reckoning
Nepal
stands at a crossroads where the deepening crisis of democratic legitimacy
threatens to derail its political future. The resurgence of pro-monarchy
activism is not a rejection of democracy but a reflection of the people’s
disillusionment with the current political order. To safeguard Nepal’s
democratic aspirations, political leaders must undertake comprehensive reforms
to restore public trust and accountability.
This
requires dismantling the culture of corruption, strengthening democratic
institutions, and fostering a political culture where dissent and diversity of
opinion are respected. Without such corrective measures, Nepal risks sliding
further into a dangerous terrain where nostalgia for autocracy replaces hope
for democratic progress.
As
history has shown, a democracy that fails to deliver justice and equity breeds
discontent, and in Nepal, this discontent is finding its voice in the growing
chorus of pro-monarchy activism. The question that Nepal’s political elite must
confront is not whether monarchy is a viable alternative, but whether democracy
can redeem itself before it’s too late.
@
Author: Dr. Asis Mistry, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science,
University of Calcutta, Email- asismistry.cu@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment