Photo by binaya_photography on Unsplash
Nepal’s House of Representatives witnessed a heated debate as lawmakers from the ruling and opposition parties clashed over increasing demands for the reinstatement of the monarchy. The discussion which grew tense, highlighted the deep political divide in the country regarding its governance system.
Ruling Party Lawmaker Criticizes Monarchy
The debate was sparked when Raghuji Panta, a legislator from the ruling Communist Party of Nepal - Unified Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML), strongly criticized the monarchy. He accused some groups of deliberately spreading frustration and misinformation among the people, creating an illusion that the monarchy was a better alternative to the current system. Panta reminded the parliament that the monarchy had been abolished in the early 2000s and questioned the justification behind the demands for its return.
Contention Over Nepal’s Territorial Map
One of the key arguments made by Panta was regarding Nepal’s territorial boundaries. He claimed that it was the monarchy that had removed the disputed territories of Lipulekh, Limpiyadhura, and Kalapani from Nepal’s map. In contrast, he argued that the present political system had officially included these areas in the country's new map, correcting the historical mistakes. His remarks suggested that the monarchy had been negligent in safeguarding Nepal’s territorial integrity.
Strong Objection from Opposition Party
Panta’s statements did not set well with opposition lawmakers, particularly Gyan Bahadur Shahi, the Chief Whip of the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP), a party that has been advocating for the restoration of the monarchy. Shahi strongly objected to Panta’s remarks and interrupted his speech that was leading to a verbal confrontation between the two leaders.
House Speaker Forced to Intervene
As the argument escalated, Speaker of the House Debraj Aryal had to step in to restore order. He instructed Shahi to voice his objections during his allocated speaking time rather than disrupting the session. The parliamentary proceedings were interrupted for nearly six minutes before the session resumed.
Opposition Suggests Alternative Governance System
In response to Panta’s criticism, Shahi argued that the people of Nepal were increasingly dissatisfied with the current governance system. He suggested that instead of debating monarchy versus republic, the country should consider an alternative system where the Prime Minister is directly elected by the people. According to Shahi, this would ensure greater accountability and better leadership.
A Deepening Political Divide
The clash in Parliament reflects the growing political tension in Nepal regarding its governance model. While the ruling party remains firm in its stance against monarchy, opposition forces continue to push for an alternative system that was fuelling a national debate on the country’s future political direction. As demands for change gain momentum, Nepal may witness further intense discussions on the structure of its government in the days to come.
The Constitutional Stance on Monarchy in Nepal: A Debate Resurfaces
Nepal’s existing constitution, which was adopted in 2072 BS (2015 AD) does not acknowledge or provide any space for monarchy. As a result, discussions regarding the restoration of monarchy hold no place in parliamentary debates. The constitution solely recognizes Nepal as a democratic republic, meaning that the governance structure is based on the principles of democracy rather than a hereditary monarchy. According to Raghuji Panta, a lawmaker from the ruling Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML), monarchy has now become a part of history similar to many other monarchical systems that have existed and later faded across the world. He argues that democracy is the global standard in contemporary governance and Nepal had to transition to this system as part of its political evolution.
Questioning the Idea of Monarchical Restoration
Panta further challenges the advocates of monarchy by questioning why the reinstatement efforts focus only on the Shah dynasty. He points out that before the Shah rulers, Nepal was ruled by various other dynasties including the Malla, Lichhavi, Kirat, Maheshpal, and Gopalbanshi dynasties. If monarchy were to be discussed, he suggests that why limit the conversation only to the Shahs and not the entire historical lineage of rulers? He emphasizes that history has always seen dynasties rise and fall and their existence is merely a result of changing times. In contrast, he asserts that a democratic republic is the present and future reality of Nepal’s political landscape.
Public Sentiment and Economic Growth Under the Republic
The lawmaker also addressed the growing calls for monarchy’s return, which have been gaining momentum particularly after thousands of pro-monarchists staged a demonstration in Kathmandu on March 9 to welcome former King Gyanendra Shah. However, while defending the existing federal democratic system during his 21-minute speech, Panta argued that Nepal’s economic situation has improved significantly since the monarchy was abolished. He claimed that the income of Nepali citizens has nearly tripled since Nepal transitioned into a democratic republic on May 28, 2008.
The Opposition’s Response
Despite Panta’s firm stance against monarchy, opposition voices have not remained silent. The right-wing pro-monarchist party, Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) has strongly opposed his statements. Gyanbahadur Shahi, the Chief Whip of RPP, countered Panta’s arguments by asserting that statements made in the parliament should be well-considered and not dismissive of public sentiment. His response reflects the growing divide between those who support Nepal’s republican system and those who believe in the revival of monarchy.
A Divisive Political Discourse
The debate over monarchy’s relevance continues to be a polarizing issue in Nepal. While the ruling party firmly defends the democratic republic, the increasing support for the former king signals that a segment of the population still values Nepal’s monarchical past. Whether or not this sentiment will translate into concrete political changes remains uncertain but for now, Nepal’s constitution remains clear—monarchy is no longer a part of its governance system.
As Nepal continues to grapple with political shifts, opposition leader Gyanbahadur Shahi of the right-wing pro-monarchist Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) has raised concerns over the legitimacy of the current system. He argues that the incumbent political framework does not reflect the direct will of the people. Shahi questions whether Nepal’s Prime Minister and President are directly elected by the citizens by pointing out that both are chosen by a limited group of elected representatives within the parliament.
In his criticism, he challenges the ruling leaders to prove their mandate by introducing a system where the executive Prime Minister is directly elected by the people. According to Shahi, if the country’s leaders truly believe they represent the people, they should be willing to face direct elections. Otherwise, he contends that they do not have the moral authority to make far-reaching statements in the parliament without the people's direct confirmation.
A Deepening Political Divide
The ongoing debate highlights Nepal’s growing political divide. While the ruling party and its allies defend the current democratic system, opposition voices are calling for significant changes including direct elections for top executive positions. At the same time, a resurgence of pro-monarchist sentiment suggests that some Nepalis still see the monarchy as a viable alternative.
. . .
References: