By P. R. Pradhan
Since the political change of 1990, or, more precisely, following the adoption of the multiparty system, Nepal has witnessed frequent government changes. The institution of monarchy was sidelined in the form of constitutional monarchy and multiparty democracy, while political leaders failed to maintain consistency, consensus and coordination among political parties. As a result, each change of government brought changes in national priorities, policies and development programmes, seriously undermining the continuity needed for long-term national development.
A review of the country’s political history shows that national development has repeatedly been derailed by political instability, while personal interests and corrupt practices have expanded. Instead of establishing a consistent national development policy, successive governments have often concentrated on short-term political interests and the consolidation of power.
Since 1990, during the multiparty era and the present period of loktantra, Nepal’s foreign debt has risen to around three trillion rupees. The government continues to rely heavily on borrowing to meet its recurrent expenditure. This situation raises serious questions about the sustainability of the national economy and the direction of economic policies pursued by successive governments.
Nepal’s trade deficit is another major concern. The country, which once exported agricultural products, has increasingly become an import-dependent economy. The growing dependence on imported goods, coupled with weak domestic production, has placed additional pressure on the national economy and contributed to the widening trade deficit.
There has also been a serious lack of honesty, dedication and commitment among sections of the political leadership. Many politicians have treated politics as a profession—or even as a business capable of generating personal benefits without productive investment. National development has consequently received less attention than personal and political interests. The misuse of public resources and the failure to ensure accountability have further weakened public confidence in political institutions.
At the same time, foreign influence over Nepal’s political, academic and intellectual spheres has increased. Indo-Western interests and the activities of various international organisations and INGOs have played an influential role in shaping Nepal’s political and social discourse. Sections of the media and civil society have sometimes promoted narratives that undermine Nepal’s traditional civilisation, culture, religion and national priorities. Whether or not all such allegations are justified, the growing perception of external influence deserves serious national discussion.
During the Panchayat era, the monarchy functioned as a permanent institution of the state and provided continuity in development policies, foreign relations and national security. Whatever its shortcomings, the system offered a degree of institutional continuity that subsequent political arrangements have struggled to maintain.
The abolition of the monarchy, therefore, remains a deeply contested issue. A large section of the population argue that the monarchy was removed largely because it stood against the way of foreign interests, particularly those of India and Western powers. The removal of a permanent institution contributed to political uncertainty and created space for communal tensions, religious conversion and other social problems.
If Nepal is to achieve lasting political stability, it needs a system capable of ensuring continuity, accountability and national consensus. From this perspective, the present political system should be reconsidered, and the institution of monarchy should be restored with clearly defined constitutional authority, particularly in matters concerning foreign policy and national security.
India and China, Nepal’s two immediate and powerful neighbours, also have legitimate strategic interests in Nepal’s stability. A politically stable Nepal would serve the interests of all three countries. If instability and external competition continue to grow, a third force could emerge to exploit Nepal’s vulnerabilities and threaten the strategic interests of both neighbours.
Nepal therefore needs consistency, consensus and coordination—not only among political parties, but also in its approach to national development, foreign policy, economic management and national security. Without these foundations, political change alone cannot deliver prosperity, stability or national independence.
Login to add a comment