refer to the case study of nepal to compare a monarchy and a democratic government

Is monarchy the answer to Nepal's 'unsuccessful' democracy?

Nepal scarcely has political ground prepared for the king to return to the throne.  the monarch also blatantly failed to deliver and fulfill their promises even when it had absolute power in the country's economic development, writes bishesh joshi and laavesh thapa for south asia monitor.

The transition from monarchy to democracy has been the zeitgeist of the late 19th and 20th centuries. The transition from democracy to dictatorship or monarchical rule has also been rampant throughout the world. However, it is rare to see a transition from the social contractarian idea of ‘self-rule’ by, of, and for the people to the ‘divine right to rule’ in the capitalist climate.

The political tectonics of Nepal seems to shift in favor of a monarchical rule, abolishing the currently unsuccessful democracy. The pro-monarchy protests and mass agitations have been mushrooming in Nepal as the government was embroiled in its internal vendettas and utterly failed to control COVID-19.  In an unprecedented move, the Nepal Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli last month dissolved the parliament on the recommendations that were duly approved by President Bidya Devi Bhandari, thus pushing the young democracy into an unprecedented constitutional crisis and political turmoil. Elections have been announced for April-May 2021.

A premise is being created in Nepal now to return back to the monarchy after it was overthrown in 2008  following a long movement. The country eventually got a secular, federal, and democratic constitution under which a communist regime came into existence in 2018.

The reasons cited for returning to the monarchy in Nepal are as follows:

*Failures of the state: The inability of the people in power to steer the nation towards prosperity and rampant corruption across the country has enraged the people of Nepal.  According to the recent report released by Transparency International in Nepal, corruption burgeoned by 58 percent in the past year, and the report further said that 50 percent of corruption cases were related to persons, organizations connected with the Prime Minister’s office, and the office of the President. Thus, monarchists believe that the possibility of corruption in a monarchical rule would be less. Since a monarchy will already be replete with the generous pensions and bounties of the state, they cannot be easily bribed like the underpaid government servants and will act in the best interest of the country.

*The citizens have given up on the government that has utterly failed to provide freedom of speech, freedom from exploitation, good policies, poverty alleviation, and proper plans of action to handle the COVID-19 situation coupled with rampant unemployment. Hence, the people of this nation are in the search of an alternative where the monarch might be the worthy replacement to at least provide all the freedoms.

*Centralization of power: People still hold the perception of monarchs as a figure who is loyal and patriotic towards the country. The people of Nepal had high hopes from political parties as people imagined a different era of ‘'New Nepal’' but their dreams shattered as they could witness neither freedom nor development in the country. Monarchists believe that the unending tussle between competing powers and partisan politics in the parliament promotes party interest at the cost of national welfare. A divided parliament generally cannot take any unilateral decision, and pass bills that deliver solutions, while a monarch can act quickly and unilaterally.

*Fracture in the pillars of democracy: Francis Fukuyama, the American political scientist, claimed that democracy was an infallible end in the struggle between ideologies. He believed that democracy’s ability to address the demand for material wealth and its potential to recognize human worth are two major dimensions that ensure the immortality of liberal democracy. However, Nepal is an utter failure to Fukuyama’s hypotheses, because it has neither provided material wealth nor ensured a fair human worth. Contrarily, the rampant corruption has driven the country to poverty, and abuse of court orders and restraint of certain fundamental rights have undermined human worth in a democracy. Therefore, it only seems viable to have a monarch who once ruled the country in Nepal’s 'golden age'. 

The reality of the expectations

It is said that “good intentions are not the sure way to good outcomes, but good actions are.” Democracy never promised development or a utopian world, therefore it is unfair for the monarchists to use a standard of development or socio-economic climate to judge democracy. It is a burden that is to be shifted to the leadership of that democracy and myriad other variables that might have been influencing the social, political, and economic fabric of the nation. The core purpose of democracy is the control that is granted to the people. It is when the leadership goes astray, that people will have the right to step in and correct the government through various instruments available to them in a democracy, like freedom of speech and expression, right to protest, constitutional and judicial remedy, the balance of power, etc.

The people’s belief that a monarch will not succumb to the lures of corruption might appear believable. However, Nepal’s royalty has been notorious for sneaking in gold through the airport, since Maharajadhirajs’ luggage was not to be touched let alone be checked.  But, even if the monarchs were an epitome of incorruptible goodness, corruption is not something that only happens at the top of the food chain. It prevails in the lower ranks, especially the bureaucracy that is the bridge between the monarchs and the people. Like the Bhardars of the medieval Shah Darbar, the modern-day ministers, and officers of the king still have enormous potential to engage in bribery and defrauding the government. 

King Mahendra’s version of good was “One country, One dress, One language, One ruler', while king Gyanendra’s version of good was the king as a parent and Nepalese citizens as children who could not think for themselves. The democratic version of the good of the current Communist government vacillated between whether the Nepali people deserve to have their representative speak for them, or whether the prime minister should time and again act as a parent by dissolving parliament. All that these historic incidents prove is that good is subjective, and thus no amount of loyalty or patriotism would make it correct. 

Fukuyama’s point on material wealth and the ability of democracy to recognize human worth isn’t only reserved for democracy but applicable to all forms of government. A happy population has been the key to the longevity of any dynasties of political legacies. It is when the state loses the grip over the ideological state apparatus that the population wakes up, and prepares itself for a revolution, leading to the demise of the greatest of regimes or dynasties.

The reason for the previous failure of King Gyanendra’s reign too was his inability to ensure the material prosperity of the nation and his failure to control the Maoist movement, who had looted and disrupted the lives of every ordinary Nepalese. 

Is monarchy the answer?

Nepal scarcely has political ground prepared for the king to return to the throne.  The monarch also blatantly failed to deliver and fulfill their promises even when it had absolute power in the country's economic development. Multi-faceted poverty was also prevalent when there was the rule of the monarch. Also, the hereditary rule does not always deliver their best products. This is so especially considering the notorious ex-crowned prince, Paras Shah, popular for his flagrant disregard of Nepali morals, involvement in adultery, and egregious indulgence in drugs.

Thus, what is best for Nepal boils down to a single question: What kind of a leader does it have, rather than the form of leadership? It is up to the Nepalese population to choose. 

(Bishesh Joshi is a second-year student at NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad. Laavesh Thapa is a third-year student at NALSAR University of Law. They can be reached at [email protected]. The views expressed are personal) 

Related Posts

Post a Comment

Air Commodore (Dr) Anurakshat Gupta speaks with Col Anil Bhat (retd.) on India’s military history | SAM Conversation

Dr Sreeradha Datta, Professor, Jindal Global University, Sonipat, India and Non resident Senior Fellow, Institute of South Asian Studies, NUS, Singapore speaks with Col Anil Bhat (retd.) on the crisis in Bangladesh and implications for India

Frank Islam speaks with South Asia expert, Dr Sreeradha Datta, Professor, Jindal Global University, Sonipat, India on the recent happenings in Bangladesh | Washington Calling

Frank Islam speaks with Robinder Sachdev, Director, India Affairs, US India Political Action Committee USINPAC | Washington Calling

In Indian capital, Muslim home cooks stir up a culinary revolution | Reimagining India

Transwomen serve inclusion on a plate

Gandhi, 1918 flu pandemic and COVID19

Faith and judiciary: A case from Pakistan

Geetanjali Shree first Indian to win International Booker Prize: Will it open doors for translations of great literature in all Indian languages?

Newsletter Subscription

State Building and Democracy: A Case Study of Nepal’s Recent Political Reforms

The IUP Journal of International Relations, Vol. III, Nos. 3 & 4, pp. 85-106, July & October 2009

Posted: 21 Oct 2009

Nepal Institute of Development Studies

Date Written: October 15, 2009

With monarchy abolished in 2008, Nepal was transformed into the world’s newest federal democratic republic. The Constituent Assembly elected in April 2008 is struggling to draft a new constitution - the seventh in the last 60 years - but political stability remains as elusive as ever. Abolition of monarchy, which put no resistance at all, was the easy part; the difficult part is to institutionalize the republic. Nepal needs to build political and economic institutions for political stability and economic prosperity but it does not have the leadership to do the job. The political parties, especially the ‘Maoists’, have raised fundamental questions on the Nepali state but no one seems to have the solutions. As a result, Nepal’s triple problem of exploding population without jobs or income, a general breakdown of law and order, and the worsened cultural and social unrest. If the Maoists are determined to turn Nepal into a ‘people’s republic’ - euphemism for communist totalitarian regime - the parliamentary parties look for an Indian-style multi-party democracy even as they failed to institutionalize it since 1991. This paper seeks to examine the problems and challenges of state and democracy building in Nepal with the focus on electoral system, party system and civil society.

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Jan Sharma (Contact Author)

Nepal institute of development studies ( email ).

Kathmandu Nepal

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics, related ejournals, law, institutions & economic development ejournal.

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

Political Institutions: Non-Democratic Regimes eJournal

Democratization: building states & democratic processes ejournal.

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction & Quick Facts
• Animal life
• Ethnic groups
• Settlement patterns
• Demographic trends
• Agriculture
• Resources and power
• Manufacturing
• Transportation
• Constitutional framework
• Health and welfare
• Cultural life
• Prehistory and early history
• Middle period
• External relations, 1750–1950

Constitutional monarchy

• Fall of the monarchy
• Federal republic

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Central Intelligence Agency - The World Factbook - Nepal
• Nepal - Children's Encyclopedia (Ages 8-11)
• Nepal - Student Encyclopedia (Ages 11 and up)
• Table Of Contents

The introduction of a democratic political system in Nepal, a country accustomed to autocracy and with no deep democratic tradition or experience, proved a formidable task. A constitution was finally approved in 1959, under which general elections for a national assembly were held. The NC won an overwhelming victory and was entrusted with the formation of Nepal’s first popular government. But persistent controversy between the cabinet and King Mahendra (reigned 1955–72) led the king to dismiss the Nepali Congress government in December 1960 and to imprison most of the party’s leaders. The constitution of 1959 was abolished in 1962, and a new constitution was promulgated that established the crown as the real source of authority. King Mahendra obtained both Indian and Chinese acceptance of his regime, and the internal opposition was weak, disorganized, and discouraged. Mahendra died in January 1972 and was succeeded by his son Birendra , who was crowned in 1975.

Recent News

Throughout the 1970s King Birendra sought to expedite economic development programs while maintaining the “nonparty” political system established by his father. The results were disappointing on both accounts, and by 1979 a systemic crisis was evident. To meet the first serious political challenge to the monarchy since 1960, King Birendra announced in May 1979 that a national referendum would be held to decide between a nonparty and multiparty (by implication , parliamentary) political system. In the referendum, which was held in May 1980, the political groups supporting the existing nonparty system won by the relatively small margin of 55 percent, accurately reflecting the sharp differences in the country on basic political issues.

It was in this context that King Birendra decided in 1980 to retain the 1962 constitution but to liberalize the political system by providing for direct popular election of the National Assembly . The government also permitted the “illegal” political parties, such as the NC, to function under only minimal constraints. Elections were still formally held on a “partyless” basis, but many candidates ran informally and openly as members of political parties.

This partial movement toward a democratic parliamentary system satisfied neither the supporters of a multiparty constitutional monarchy nor several more radical leftist factions, and in February 1990 a coalition of centrist and leftist opposition forces began a campaign demanding basic political reforms. A series of protests and strike s followed nationwide, and the royal government’s efforts to suppress the movement with force were ineffectual. In April, as the situation in Kathmandu Valley worsened, King Birendra lifted the ban on political parties, abrogated the more repressive security ordinances, and on April 16 appointed a coalition interim government headed by the president of the NC, Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, but also including the moderate faction of the communist movement, the United Leftist Front.

The policy objectives of the interim government were “to maintain law and order, develop a multiparty system on the basis of constitutional monarchy , draft a new constitution , and hold general election s” to a parliament . Within a year, all four tasks were accomplished with remarkable success despite the broad divergence of views among the major political organizations. A draft of the new constitution, prepared by a broadly representative government commission, was submitted to the palace and the cabinet on September 10, 1990. In November, following two months of vigorous debate on a number of key issues—including the role of the king, the development of a secular state, emergency powers , and the status of Nepal’s many languages—an amended version of the constitution was promulgated by King Birendra that provided for both a constitutional monarchy and a multiparty parliamentary political system.

General elections held on May 12, 1991, gave the NC a majority in parliament (110 of 205 seats), but the moderate Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist)—CPN (UML)—with 69 seats, emerged as a strong opposition party. The two “Pancha” parties usually associated with the old system won only four seats. The elections were thus perceived to constitute a strong endorsement of the 1990 political changes, and G.P. Koirala , the brother of Nepal’s first elected prime minister (1959–60), was nominated by the NC and appointed by the king to head the new elected government.

Nepal emerged from this period of rapid political change facing a multitude of economic and social problems; among these were a stagnant economy and a variety of regional ethnic and religious movements, some of whose basic demands were not acceptable to the country’s Hindu majority. Although overwhelming support existed for the new democratic constitutional monarchy system, at both the party and the public level, the democratic movement itself remained badly fractionalized and antagonistic , making more difficult the new government’s attempt to introduce the kind of hard-hitting economic and social policies the panchayat governments had carefully avoided in an effort to mollify several small but important interest groups.

Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.

Transition of Monarchy in South Asia

DOI link for Transition of Monarchy in South Asia

Click here to navigate to parent product.

South Asian countries are in various stages of their democratic evolution. It includes the largest functioning democracy in the world to countries which have had intermittent interruptions, sometimes violent insurgencies for radical change. Economically too, the states are at various stages of economic development. Nepal is the oldest sovereign nation of the region as it was never colonized. It had to endure ten years of violent Maoist insurgency followed by over a decade of political transition from a monarchy to a republic. The deadly 2015 earthquake further pushed back the development indices of Nepal. Bhutan also embraced democratic change only recently from absolute rule of the monarch to a more participatory multiparty form of governance. Afghanistan too was once a monarchy and after four decades of war is still struggling to bring all sides of the conflict – internal and external – to stabilize itself. Indeed, it has been a long, arduous journey for the people of these countries. The main focus must be on revitalizing the economy, providing good governance to the teeming millions, providing employment and fulfilling the aspirations of the youth. It has been seen that democracy itself does not feed the hungry and clothe the needy. Periodic elections alone does not guarantee peace, stability, prosperity and societal cohesion. The chapter looks at the transition of Nepal from monarchy to democracy and the challenges that it faces in addressing the needs of people.

• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Taylor & Francis Online
• Taylor & Francis Group
• Students/Researchers
• Librarians/Institutions

Connect with us

Registered in England & Wales No. 3099067 5 Howick Place | London | SW1P 1WG © 2024 Informa UK Limited

• Volunteering
• Translating
• Take Action
• Urgent Appeals
• Press Releases
• Hunger Alerts
• Forwarded News
• Compression
• Orthotics and Insoles
• Foot Health blog
• Email Us At [email protected]
• Call Us At +(852) 2698 6339

[email protected]

NEPAL: The struggle to establish democracy

Nepal President Bidya Devi Bhandari on December 20 sent shockwaves across the country as she approved the Cabinet’s recommendation for the dissolution of the Lower House of Parliament. The president’s move has pushed the Himalayan country deeper into the quagmire of instability even as it had been attempting to find its footing in democratic politics. Having suffered a decade-long insurgency and an autocratic monarchy around the turn of the century, the people of Nepal had fought hard in the past couple of decades had finally begun to dream of a stable and peaceful political future. Their dreams had been fuelled by the success of the 2006 popular movement against King Gyanendra’s direct rule, the Madhes uprising against a centralized political structure, the elections to a constituent assembly, and the drafting of a constitution that, despite various shortcomings, recognized the rights of the citizens to life, liberty, happiness and justice.

The dissolution of the parliament has not only pushed the country decades back to the 1990s that saw Nepal’s nascent at democratizing itself being sabotaged by the monarchy and political parties but has also left them wondering if they can expect political stability in the foreseeable future. After all, the Nepali people had in 2017 ushered the Nepal Communist Party, a coming together of the Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist-Leninist), led by KP Sharma Oli, and the Maoist Centre, led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal aka Prachanda, the former insurgent leader, to power by electing it with a nearly two-thirds majority. Having failed to distance herself from the power tussle between the Oli and Dahal, the twin co-chairs of the party, the president, took no time to approve the Cabinet’s recommendation even if that meant pushing the developing country to yet another political crisis.

Nepal’s encounter with a political crisis, though, is not new. To understand how the country that made some significant strides towards political stability and democratic politics in the past decade-and-a-half went backward to with the stroke of a pen, it is pertinent to see how the latent and manifest forms of authoritarianism, militarism and impunity inform its political culture in the past as well as present.

Militarization of the political sphere

The history of modern Nepal is around 250 years old. It was King Prithvi Narayan Shah, the first king of modern Nepal, who laid the foundation of a military organization loyal to the monarchy. In 1762, when Prithvi Narayan Shah attacked Kirtipur a third time and claimed victory over it, he ordered that the noses of the locals be chopped off. As many as 865 locals were said to have been the victims of such extreme punitive measures. In a place called Lachyang in the present Nuwakot District, the indigenous Tamang people organized an uprising against the state during the reign of King Rana Bahadur Shah. And in response, the state organized a huge massacre on two occasions, around 1794, when an estimated 1000 Tamangs were said to have been killed during the uprising.

After Junga Bahadur Rana became the prime minister of the country through a military coup in 1844, he formed the Bhairavnath Battalion by admitting the Rai and Limbu community people from the eastern part of the country. Not only was a particular community preferred in the military, but the chief of army staff was also from the same Rana family for 119 years. The tradition of Ranas becoming the chief of army staff continued until 1965, which shows how the foundation of Nepal’s military was feudal in structure.

Nepal’s military has not had to face external challenges after the fight with British Indian forces in 1816 and the subsequent Sugauli treaty except in 1976 when two of its battalions had been deployed to control the Khampa rebellion. But the military has had an unrelenting presence in Nepalese politics since the very foundation of the state of Nepal. Although its image is projected to be that of a professional institution that looks after the integrity of the Nepalese territory, the fact is that, throughout the history of Modern Nepal, it has been involved in the suppression of all kinds of movements and uprisings for social, economic, and political changes, and the protection of the ruling class. So much so that it was used against the first democratically elected prime minister of Nepal, BP Koirala.

The struggle to establish democracy

Nepal had had a brief tryst with democracy in the early 1950s when the political climate in the aftermath of the Second World War and the decolonization of the country’s southern neighbor, India, made it impossible for the Rana oligarchs to continue holding on to power. But the initial euphoria gave way to three decades of the autocratic monarchy when King Mahendra orchestrated a royal coup against Koirala. This was a time when the South Asian subcontinent had become a battleground for all variants of political regimes and ideologies, ranging from democracy to dictatorship. In Pakistan, the people’s anger against Zia Ul Haq’s dictatorship was rising after his government executed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto; in India, Indira Gandhi had come back to power after losing elections once on the heels of the emergency; Bangladesh had been reeling under dictatorship, with several high profile assassinations within a decade of its founding; and in Sri Lanka, an armed insurgency was gaining ground and would, in another three years, escalate exponentially.

In Nepal, the movement against autocratic monarchy had entered its third and decisive decade in the 1980s, the time when people across various parts of Asia were trying to get rid of their dictatorial governments. For Nepali politicians, writers and intellectuals who had fought against the country’s autocratic monarchy from the 1960s through the 1980s the May-18 Uprising came as a part of global solidarity against authoritarianism and dictatorship. It became a reference point for the Nepalese, who had been struggling to democratize the country’s politics and the public sphere. More importantly, the May-18 Uprising and its aftermath have important lessons for Nepal, as well as the world, of course, on what must be done to prevent militarism and authoritarianism and to build a formidable democratic polity. It took a sustained struggle, both armed and peaceful, to finally bring the monarch, under the fold of parliamentary politics in 1990.

The struggle to sustain democracy

The early 1990s saw unprecedented freedom of the press, political activities and the opening of organizations and unions, as citizens were allowed to publish freely and form unions and parties. Soon after, however, voices of disenchantment started popping up, with people belonging to different identity groups complaining that their voices were not represented in the constitution. However, hardly had the parliamentary politics begun to get its foothold when the Maoist insurgency, led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal aka Prachanda, began in 1996. It escalated exponentially after 2001 when the Sher Bahadur Deuba government declared an emergency and mobilized the army. After two failed dialogues with the Deuba government and the Lokendra Bahadur Chand government in 2002 and 2003 respectively, the Maoists finally decided to come to mainstream politics after an understanding with a political alliance of seven parliamentary parties in late 2005 to remove the autocratic monarchy led by King Gyanendra. From the 1990s onwards, the military made some attempts at maintaining some proximity to political parties even as it remained loyal to the monarchy. But some attempts at demilitarization, strengthening of the Nepal Police, and establishment of the Armed Police Force dealt a blow to the relationship between the military and political parties. That led the king and the military to come closer to one another. The military’s oppressive character became especially more evident when the government imposed an emergency in 2002 to tackle the Maoist insurgency.

This led to increased casualties not only among the insurgents but among the common people as well as it began indiscriminate killing, kidnapping and other forms of human rights abuses in the name of counter-insurgency. From partaking in oppressive schemes of rulers to turning into an ambitious entrepreneur institution, the military in Nepal is a major case study of what it should not be. And by taking advantage of the country turning into a militarized state, king Gyanendra organized a royal coup with the backing of the military, taking the country to yet another level of regression. King Gyanendra used the military for a political coup and put major political leaders under house arrest and deployed the military in all major media houses in the country. The king’s direct rule was removed by the second people’s movement in 2006. If there is any lesson to be learned from Nepal’s political history, it is that the military should in no way be brought between the rulers and the people. The 19-day movement did not only reinstate the democracy that had been suppressed by the king but also brought the Maoists to the mainstream politics. It also brought the country under the fold of the constitution again and helped remove the 240-year-old monarchy once and for all.

After the successful movement for the restoration of democracy in 2006, which culminated in the transformation of a Hindu monarchical state to a secular republican state, Nepal has undergone a complex process of restructuring of its social and political foundations. In the last three decades, different factors like the rise of identity politics, Maoist insurgency, and the global context have brought about a change in the social and political dynamics of Nepal. But the country has also been facing a crisis of stability as political parties have not been fully successful in their attempts to turn it into a democratic, inclusive state. As Nepal runs into political turbulence yet again, it is important more than ever before, to look back at history and realize that the use of authoritarian techniques for political power-grabbing as well as suppressing a dissenting people is detrimental to the democratic foundations of the country. If anything, the only contribution of militarism and authoritarianism is to aggravate the situation and create a condition in which the ideas of peace, justice, and human rights take a backseat.

About the Author:

« SRI LANKA: Four years prison term for contempt of court violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

Bangladesh: authoritarian repression in curbing civic space harms more than the pandemic », news filter, get involved, take action here.

Make a difference. You are just a few clicks away from making a contribution to Human Rights work

Subscribe for mail

Follow ahrc, get involved, journals & magazines.

• Ethics in Action
• TORTURE: Asian and Global Perspectives
• Human Rights Correspondence School
• Torture: Asian and Global
• Perspectives

Contact Information

Asian Human Rights Commission G/F, 52 Princess Margaret Road Ho Man Tin, Kowloon Hong Kong Tel: +(852) 2698 6339 Fax: +(852) 2698 6367

• Accessibility
• Subscriptions
• Subscription

Read The Diplomat , Know The Asia-Pacific

• Central Asia
• Southeast Asia
• Environment
• Asia Defense
• China Power
• Crossroads Asia
• Flashpoints
• Pacific Money
• Tokyo Report
• Trans-Pacific View
• Photo Essays
• Write for Us
• Subscriptions

Nepal’s Democracy Enters Another Challenging Phase

Recent features.

Sri Lanka’s Presidential Manifestos: What’s Promised for Women?

The Global Battle for Chip Talent: South Korea’s Strategic Dilemma

Bangladesh’s New Border Stance Signals a Shift in Its Approach to India 

The Solomon Islands-China Relationship: 5 Years On

Finding Home in Bishkek: Kyrgyzstan’s South Asian Expats

Kashmir at the Boiling Point as Elections Loom

Kim Jong Un Abandoned Unification. What Do North Koreans Think?

The Domestic Politics Behind Inter-Korean Relations

Amin Saikal on the United States’ Many Mistakes in Afghanistan

Why the Nuclear Revolution Matters in an Era of Emerging Great Power Competition

Sri Lanka’s Central Asia Gambit

The Curious Vatican-Asian Alliance

The pulse  |  politics  |  south asia.

The recent Supreme Court order reinstating parliament has put the constitution back on track.

Nepali Congress leader Sher Bahadur Deuba is Nepal’s 43rd prime minister.

On July 12, the Supreme Court of Nepal overturned Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli’s May 21 decision to dissolve the House of Representatives, and issued a judicial writ to appoint Nepali Congress leader Sher Bahadur Deuba as the country’s prime minister as per Article 76(5) of Nepal’s constitution.

This is the second time in five months that the apex court is reinstating the House. It had done so on February 23 as well, after Oli dissolved it on December 20, 2020.

The court’s latest order ends Oli’s three-and-a-half-year stint as Nepal’s prime minister.

Back in May, Deuba and other leaders of the opposition alliance had submitted the signatures of 149 lawmakers, including those of 26 legislators of the Jhala NathKhanal-Madhav Nepal faction of the Communist Party of Nepal-United Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML) to President Bidya Devi Bhandari.

But Bhandari rejected Deuba’s claim to form a new government under Article 76 (5), and went on to dissolve the 275-member lower house at the recommendation of Oli. Snap elections were announced on November 12 and November 19.

Petitions were filed in the court against these controversial decisions. The Supreme Court has ruled now that their decisions were unconstitutional.

According to Bhimarjun Acharya, a lawyer who specializes on constitutional law, the apex court verdict will contribute to “the constitution’s longevity, and with a strongly worded verdict, the court has told the authorities to stop making a mockery of the constitution.”

The ruling, he said “has brought the constitution back on track. All in all, it is the victory of the rule of law, constitutionalism, independence of judiciary and democracy.”

However, the court verdict has also been criticized with some, including Oli, accusing it of judicial activism . Did Nepal’s Supreme Court go overboard in appointing a prime minister?

While the verdict is a victory for Nepal’s constitution it may not bring political uncertainty to an end. Deuba needs to seek a vote of confidence in the House in a month. His position is shaky as Nepal’s largest party, the CPN-UML, is sitting in the opposition. There is no telling what Oli’s next steps will be. Besides, will all the legislators, who backed Deuba, continue to support him in the upcoming vote of confidence?

The Supreme Court order may have put Nepal’s democracy back on track but enormous challenges remain.

According to Dr. Kyungmee Kim, a visiting researcher at the Department of Peace and Conflict Research at Uppsala University, “the lack of inclusiveness and representation of diverse minorities in the country is a threat to consolidate democracy.”  While Nepal “has made tremendous progress” with regard to democratization over the past decade, “the progress is stagnant if not under threat due to the emergence of political leaders who have autocratic tendencies.”

In addition, Nepal’s democracy is under pressure from right-wing Hindutva forces in India as also from China’s communists. The Nepal Communist Party (NCP) was formed in 2018 with the blessings of China, and the Oli government that was formed as a result and had the support of the Chinese government and the Chinese Communist Party. Its role in shoring up support for the Oli government throughout the political crisis over the past two years was evident.

As for India, the country is now governed by a right-wing Hindutva nationalist party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), whose ideological driver, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, has often said that it wishes to see Nepal as a Hindu Rastra (state). It is also in favor of the restoration of monarchy in Nepal and the return of ousted king Gyanendra Shah.

A return to the monarchical system or re-establishment of a Hindu state would mean the death of democracy in Nepal, as demonstrations calling for these will intensify as the flow of funding for them grows.

Calls for the establishment of a Hindu state and for restoration of the monarchy are growing in Nepal. This is causing unease among some sections of the Nepali public.

Some leaders of the Nepali Congress support the establishment of a Hindu state. Will Deuba be able to keep them under check? He faces an uphill task in taking Nepal’s democracy forward.

Several tasks, including vaccinating the Nepali population, revitalizing the sluggish economy, curbing corruption, and conducting free and fair elections, await Nepal’s new prime minister.

Oli has been corralled this time around but he cannot be written off. The possibility of Deuba and Oli coming together for the next elections cannot be ruled out. The situation is murky and the future of Nepal’s democracy remains unclear.

Nepal’s Once-and-Future Prime Minister: What to Expect From Deuba’s Foreign Policy

By kamal dev bhattarai.

Can Nepal’s New Prime Minister Navigate Rough Political Seas?

Nepal Gets a New Prime Minister (For Now)

By binaj gurubacharya.

The Return of the Left Alliance in Nepal Changes Regional Power Dynamics

By rishi gupta.

By Saqlain Rizve

By Kwangbaek Lee and Rose Adams

Animating Peace: How Pakistan’s ‘The Glassworker’ Found a Voice in Hiroshima

By muhammad rauhan rasheed.

Why Mongolia Won’t Arrest Vladimir Putin

By telmen altanshagai.

By Harini Fernando

By Rajiv Kumar

By Jessica Sims and Haley Zehrung

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Transition of Nepal From Monarchy To Democracy

Nepal is the mid-Himalayan country of South Asia and has its border with India on the South, East & West and China on the North. They are interrelated with each other by all measures, including geography, ethnicity, language, religion, and caste. The two countries not only share an open border and unhindered movement of people but they also have close bonds through marriages and familial ties, which is unique in Asia. They share a long standing, cordial and multi-faceted relationship based on mutual respect and understanding, characterised by open borders, deep-rooted people-to-people contacts and extensive cooperation. Both countries are bound by ancient history, geography, culture, religion and shared values. This present paper is a small effort towards analysing the transition of Nepal from the period of Kingdom to democracy. This paper is an attempt to understand the domestic political scenario that Nepal has experienced with major turmoil and transformation both in the nature of political system as well as in the character of the government.

Related Papers

International Journal of Political Science and Development

The Indo-Nepal relationship has witnessed a major transformation in post-2008 period. India and Nepal share a unique relationship due to geographical contiguity, social propinquity, common religion, culture and ethnic ties. However, the two countries had seen many ups and downs in their relationship after the transition in Nepal from Monarchy to Democracy. With Nepal's adoption of the constitution, the relationship has witnessed a paradigm shift. India provided all necessary help for the holding of Nepal elections and has welcomed Nepal's transition to democracy. This paper will explore the narratives to showcase the implications of Indo-Nepal relations after the transition. Further, the authors have disseminated India's part in Nepal's transition from Monarchy to Democracy. Lastly, the various approaches that the government of India must be directed while dealing with newly democratic country was also advocated.

Krishna Hachhethu

in South Asia carried out a survey on the state of democracy in Nepal. Three years later, they conducted another survey to determine how much the Nepali people’s understanding of democracy and other issues had changed after the April 2006 Jana Andolan (People’s Movement), which put an end to the armed confl ict and ushered in the process of confl ict transformation. This publication presents the major fi ndings of the survey, which was comple-mented by interviews with the representatives of Nepali elites and an additional survey among members of the legislature. These fi ndings, which herald a shift in the people’s perspective, a perspective that will shape Nepal’s new political course, include: o The people’s remarkable adherence to democracy is in conformity with the building up of social capital. o The envisioning of a new Nepali state in which three major transforma-tions will have taken place—the kingdom transformed into a republic, the milieu of armed confl ict transformed int...

Routledge Handbook of South Asian Politics, ed. Paul Brass

David Gellner

Nirdesh Silwal

Tulasi R Kafle

This paper provides a quick overview of Nepal that spans its origins, different historical accounts, demographics, and current socio-political context. Some of the major political activities that have been followed by important civil uprisings and instability are also covered. Other works contained herein that have been consulted include online sources available across the internet and other media portals. While some of the descriptions and explanations included are from the author’s own personal experience and analysis as a citizen, most of the works are assembled from various sources comprising online portals and blogs, news magazines, official archives, and the digital library. Most of the facts and figures as well as historical accounts have been assembled from various governmental and non-governmental online sources. The paper aims to provide its reader a quick guide about Nepal in its various aspects. The future health of Nepal rests greatly in the hope of creating a new constitution, a process started in 2008. Naturally beautiful, Nepal today is worse off than ever before. In spite of (or perhaps because of) this, Nepalese have huge hope and faith in the upcoming Constitution, and are impatiently looking forward to experiencing a new start in the country because of it.

Than Bahadur Chhetri

IOSR Journals

Pramod Kantha

Since 2005, Nepal has been engaged in a complex political transition that has resulted in the termination of Nepal’s 240 year old monarchy. Currently, the progress of Nepal’s political transition confronts the dual challenges of writing a constitution and mainstreaming the Maoists and their thousands of combatants, who had engaged in a decade long insurgency against the state. Growing differences between the radical Maoists and Nepal’s other political parties have repeatedly blocked Nepal’s attempt to institutionalize democracy. How does one study Nepal’s democratic transition? How does Nepal’s case relate to the wider scholarship on transition to democracy? This article critically applies the modes of transition approach to analyze Nepal’s various political transitions. The modes of transition approach with its emphasis on elite interactions during periods of transition and their enduring impact of such interactions on the regime that emerges offers a valuable analytical framework ...

rachna kumari

This article discusses the political upheavals that have occurred in Nepal over the past few decades. Nepal has experienced significant changes in its political landscape since the late 20th century, including the end of the monarchy in 2008 and the adoption of a federal democratic republic system. However, Nepal has also seen periods of political instability and uncertainty, including a decadelong Maoist insurgency and subsequent peace process. Most recently, in 2020, a series of political crises led to a change in government and heightened tensions between political parties. The article explores the causes and effects of these political upheavals and the challenges facing Nepal's democracy today. Petty personal and party interests are creating this political instability that is obstructing the process of nation-building and state-building. Political upheavals in Nepal have affected security dynamics in the region. For instance, the end of the monarchy and the subsequent political instability allowed space for various insurgent groups to emerge, posing security threats both within Nepal and potentially spilling over into India's bordering states. However, this has necessitated increased vigilance and coordination between Indian security forces and their Nepalese counterparts.

Himalayan 'People's War': Nepal's Maoist Rebellion. …

Joanna Pfaff-Czarnecka

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Third Concept

Rishi Gupta

Contributions to Nepalese Studies

Gopal Shrestha

James Okolie-Osemene PhD

Hema Kiruppalini

Prakash Adhikari, Ph.D.

Kishor Sharma

Raj Kumar Kothari

Mahendra Lawoti

Prakash Upadhyay

than chetri

Seminar, special issue on democracy in Asia

Bal Gopal Shrestha

Karl-Heinz Krämer

Sociological bulletin

Amanda Snellinger

Randy J Bender

Philip Stevenson

National Foundation for Development of Indigenous Nationalities2015

Shyamu Thapa Magar

Indeewari K Galagama

Dr Bishnu Raj Upreti

Aleksi Iltapala

South Asia Masala http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/blogs/southasiamasala/2013/12/16/constituent-assembly-election-ii-in-nepal-will-it-end-the-prolonged-political-transition-3/

Binod Chapagain

Asian Ethnicity

Renaud Egreteau

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024