By Our Reporter
Nineteen years after Nepal abolished the monarchy and embraced a federal democratic republic, the debate is no longer about how the system was born. It is about how it has been run.
When the Constituent Assembly declared Nepal a republic in 2008, it marked the end of a 240-year-old monarchy and the beginning of a new political chapter. The promise was ambitious: a more inclusive state, accountable leadership, stronger institutions and a government closer to citizens. The 2015 Constitution sought to institutionalize that vision through federalism and three tiers of government.
On paper, much has changed. Citizens elect representatives at local, provincial and federal levels. Marginalized groups enjoy greater political representation. Local governments have more authority than ever before. Infrastructure has expanded, and democratic rights are far broader than they were under the monarchy.
Yet public frustration is difficult to ignore. The reason is simple. People tend to judge political systems not by constitutional documents but by everyday experience. When citizens struggle to find jobs, face corruption in public offices, wait endlessly for services and watch political leaders fight over power, the achievements of political change begin to feel distant.
That frustration has largely been directed at the parties that led the republican movement.
For nearly two decades, Nepal’s major political forces, primarily the Nepali Congress, CPN UML and the Maoists, dominated the political landscape. They were the architects of the republican order and became its principal managers. Citizens repeatedly gave them opportunities to govern. Governments came and went, coalitions formed and collapsed, but many voters felt that governance standards did not improve at the same pace as political rhetoric.
This is where the metaphor of the “driver’s seat” becomes important.
Many citizens are not necessarily rejecting the vehicle itself. They are questioning the people who have been driving it.
That sentiment explains the rise of new political forces. The stunning electoral success of the Rastriya Swatantra Party was not simply a victory for a new party. It was also a protest against established political actors. Millions of voters used the ballot box to signal dissatisfaction with the old guard.
The emergence of a government led by figures associated with that new political wave reflects this broader shift. Citizens wanted different faces, different methods and different priorities.
The challenge, though, is that changing drivers does not automatically solve structural problems.
The current government inherited a system shaped by years of political compromise, bureaucratic inertia and weak institutional reforms. Many of the frustrations that fueled the rise of new political forces remain unresolved. Expectations, meanwhile, have become even higher.
That is why the government’s recent decision to form a team to recommend constitutional changes has attracted attention.
Supporters argue that some constitutional provisions have produced instability, overlapping jurisdictions and governance complications. Critics worry that constitutional revision could become a vehicle for broader political agendas.
This has fueled speculation about a more dramatic possibility: could Nepal revisit the republican model itself?
At present, there is little evidence suggesting the government is preparing to dismantle republicanism. The political, legal and constitutional barriers are immense. More importantly, there is no clear national consensus in favor of abandoning the republic.
The dissatisfaction visible today appears directed more toward performance than toward the existence of the system.
Even many critics of the current order acknowledge that the republic delivered important gains. The debate is increasingly centered on governance failures, corruption, weak service delivery and political culture rather than on restoring monarchical rule.
Still, perceptions matter in politics. When people repeatedly hear arguments that nothing has changed despite major political transformation, frustration can evolve into skepticism toward institutions themselves. That is the risk facing Nepal’s republican project.
The irony is that many of the republic’s strongest critics today are not attacking the principles behind the system. They are highlighting the gap between promises and outcomes.
The comments from leaders across party lines reveal an unusual consensus. Leaders from both governing and opposition camps admit that political parties failed to reform institutions, curb corruption and build a political culture that matched the ideals of the republic.
In other words, many of the people who helped create the system now acknowledge that they struggled to make it deliver.
That places enormous pressure on the current government. The RSP and its allies came to power on a promise of doing things differently. Citizens who lost faith in traditional parties are now watching closely to see whether the newcomers can produce results where their predecessors failed.
Nineteen years after the republic was established, Nepal finds itself at a crossroads. The central question is no longer monarchy versus republic. It is competence versus disappointment.
If the current leadership succeeds in improving governance, public trust in the republican system could strengthen. If it fails, calls for deeper constitutional and political changes may grow louder.
The republic’s future may ultimately depend less on constitutional theory and more on whether those occupying the driver’s seat can finally convince citizens that the vehicle is moving in the right direction.
To conclude, is there left any grounds for improvement in the governance, it is a burning question as even after 19 years, the nation is continuously degrading, whereas, the nation’s debt burden has been skyrocketing. Citizens are compelled to pay a heavy taxation, highest compared in the South Asian region, yet, there is no relief from the government. Fade-up with the system and politicians, every time, when the former King comes in the streets, we can see a human sea. People are found chanting slogans such as, “Come King, Save Nation!”
Whether we are to pass through one after another experiment and killing time or abandonee the present unsuitable system by introducing a system with check and balance and the monarchy playing a role of a monitor!
Login to add a comment