To survive and sustain for 5 decades is no mean feat, a reason why people celebrate the golden jubilees with fervor. Such celebrations perhaps were never destined for the royals in Nepal. What would have been the golden jubilee year of the royal ascendancy to power in Nepal following the Royal Decree of April 1958 which consolidated the supremacy of monarchy has turned out to be the year of annihilation.

After the Delhi Settlement in February 1951, through an Interim Government of Nepal Act on 30 March 1951, the King of Nepal regained his supremacy over the Rana Prime Minister and became the fountain of executive, legislative and judicial powers. It had brought almost a century-long Ranacracy to an end. Two major developments took place between the years 1952-59 in Nepalese politics. First was the assertion and ascension of the King to a supreme position in the power structure through successive amendments to the Interim Constitution and the second one was his control over the army and police.

Through a Royal Decree issued in April 1958 the King directed prefixing of terms like ‘His Majesty’ and ‘Royal’ before all the state departments and institutions. That was how the Palace Secretariat became the nerve centre of then Nepal politics. Thus the year 2008 happens to be the golden jubilee year of that Royal ascendancy through the 1958 Decree.

See the change today. Fifty years ago, he political parties like NC fought for the retention of Monarchy and the rejection of Ranacracy. But today, all the political parties have joined hands to make Nepal a Republic and to abolish the Monarchy. That day ‘Royal’ was the key word whereas today that word adorns the pages of history only as the King succumbing to the democratic death blow. Atop the Narayanhiti Palace tower, there was once the Royal Flag that symbolised the glories of Monarchy whereas a Nepali national flag is flown there today furling and replacing the silky royal one.

The King was then dictating law from the palace whereas today the Constituent Assembly (CA) passes orders to the King to vacate the palace within 15 days. There was then the jubilation of the people on the streets for ending Ranacracy, today they are euphoric over the end of a 239 year old monarchy.

The formal end of the royal rule has been the culmination of the peace deal reached between the Maoists and the parties that successfully launched the Janandolan-II against the autocratic rule of King Gyanendra in April, 2006. There was almost a consensus (only 4 were against the motion) among the members of the CA with regard to the abolition of monarchy. Now it is abolished as an institution, invalidated as a force and factor in Nepal’s politics and discredited as a cultural and religious symbol.
Despite that a postmortem on the deceased institution raises some questions of concern and issues to debate with. A question that strikes many minds is whether it is possible to erase the memories of monarchy from the minds of people of a land having lived under monarchy for 239 years. The election results may not be always reflective of reason and soundness of people. It may be guided by passion, circumstances and thus could be a momentary one. This may be a move against the power hungry and visionless King Gyanendra, for his role since 2001 palace massacre till 2006. Can this five years’ misrule discredit the institution altogether? There are pockets of its supporters in Nepal. They have gestured their resentment by setting off three bombs in Kathmandu on that historic day of the 28th May.

However laudable, this aim may not prove easy to achieve, and some conflict lines have become immediately evident. Nepal today is facing a leadership crisis. Except few of the kings in the past, virtually no leader existed who had a national standing and appeal. If this metamorphosing country is not properly led it will meet with disastrous ends. It should be noted that between 1991 and 2000, 10 prime ministers have led coalition governments in Kathmandu. The present CA party equation too faces a leadership crisis. Koirala and Prachanda are not in agreement over several issues. The situation in the CA demands that if the political parties fail to pull together the very purpose will end in fiasco.

Nepal today is facing the problem of nation building. Gone are the days of the partyless authoritarian panchayat system which had projected Nepal as one nation, one language and one culture. Today’s Nepal society is a fractured one. There are several ethnic groups fighting among themselves to assert their identities. With the coming of democracy, their aspirations have gone higher leading to conflict of identities and aspirations.

Political democracy without economic justice may turn the rising aspirations of people into rising frustration. Nepal is one of the poorest countries of the world with 70 percent of its population below poverty line. The economic structure of Nepal is largely characterised by the semi-feudalistic pattern of development, where low agricultural productivity prevails. Agriculture, trade and external debt and foreign aid have been the major aspects of Nepal’s economy.

All said and done, hard bargaining lies ahead for political parties of opposite ideologies to come to a consensus many teething issues like form of government, head of state, the symbol of national unity in the absence of a king in an otherwise semi-feudal society, the portfolio distribution during the interim period of constitution drafting, the choosing of Prime Minister and President from amongst several aspiring parties, the procedure of removing the Prime minister by simple or special majority and the powers and role of the president (executive or ceremonial), among others.

As Bagehot had said, establishing Democracy is easy but maintaining it is difficult. Similarly, launching the movement for Democracy was perhaps easy, but its sustenance for the time to come seems difficult and that applies to Nepal as well. Last but not the least, drafting a constitution needs a deeper democratic ethos. Democracy can only survive in an atmosphere of accommodation, understanding and mutual adjustment. To drive all parties to a consensus is an uphill task, especially if they have a propensity to engage in unending squabbles in the CA, similar to what they did during 1991-2001.

To conclude, it can be said that the forces that could bring democracy into Nepal are expected to transform into factors of stabilization of democracy. However the path is an arduous one. If the aspirations of the people for a stable, peaceful and economically prospering Nepal remain unfulfilled, it may lead to the resurrection of the monarchy in some form or other. Kampuchea(1993) and Nepal (of 1951) itself are the prospective instances in this direction.

The signs are already obvious. It was reported that the deposed king Gyanendra is going to float a political party which is expected to a platform for convergence of all royalist supporters. This keeps the door open for Gyanendra to return to the helm of affairs or influence them in the near future as a rational-legal authority through a democratic platform. As we know, election results could be dramatically reversed with the change in circumstances as it happened in India in 1980 which contrasted with the results of 1977 general elections.


Anil Kumar Mohapatra is Head, Department of Political Science, Government Women’s College, Jeypore, Orrisa. He can be contacted at anilmohapatra68@gmail.com