Submit your Article

Nepal’s journey toward democracy has been complex, marked by historic milestones and persistent setbacks. When the country officially transitioned from an absolute monarchy to a federal democratic republic in 2008, it was seen as the dawn of a new era. This transformation followed a decade-long war and mass protests demanding rights, representation and justice. The establishment of a republic raised hopes for peace, equity and development. However, more than 15 years later, those expectations remain largely unmet—especially in the economic realm, where the dividends of democracy have yet to materialize for many.

Formal democracy, informal disappointments

While Nepal has established the formal structures of a democratic state—elections, political parties, a constitution and federalism—the practice of democracy often falls short. Citizens' frustration is not with democracy itself, but with its dysfunctional implementation. Accountability, opportunity and responsive leadership remain elusive, and nowhere is this more evident than in economic governance.

The promise of a democratic system is that it enables inclusive growth and public investment through transparent, accountable institutions. Yet in Nepal, economic policy has been reactive rather than visionary. Budget execution is chronically low, capital expenditure is underutilized and key sectors such as agriculture, tourism, hydropower and technology remain underdeveloped. A democratic structure without strategic economic vision risks becoming hollow.

An economic liability

One of the most visible weaknesses of Nepal’s democratic system is its chronic political instability. Since the restoration of multiparty democracy in 1990, no prime minister has completed a full term. Coalition collapses and intra-party power struggles have led to frequent changes in government—more than two dozen in three decades.

This instability severely undermines economic planning. Policies change with each administration, discouraging long-term investments. Infrastructure projects stall, public procurement is delayed and institutional continuity suffers. For instance, Nepal’s five-year development plans often remain under-implemented because ministers and bureaucrats change faster than the plans can be executed. The opportunity cost—lost employment, unbuilt infrastructure and delayed reforms—is immense.

Graft and resource mismanagement

Corruption has further weakened Nepal’s ability to transform political representation into economic outcomes. Widespread misuse of public funds, irregular procurement practices and nepotism in public appointments drain resources from essential services and development projects. Despite the presence of anti-corruption agencies like the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA), few high-profile cases result in meaningful penalties.

This weak enforcement discourages both foreign and domestic investment. According to Transparency International, Nepal remains among the lower third of countries in corruption perception rankings, signaling high-risk to investors. Corruption also distorts public spending, prioritizing politically profitable projects over socially beneficial ones. For instance, road and hydropower contracts are often awarded not for impact, but for kickbacks.

Weak public services, unequal development

Despite multiple elections and over a decade of democratic governance, basic public services remain inadequate. In rural districts, schools lack trained teachers and health posts often “operate” without doctors or medicines. Poor infrastructure—broken roads, erratic electricity and limited internet access—continues to hold back economic activity outside Kathmandu and a few urban centers.

This neglect perpetuates regional inequality. While the capital and some provinces have seen improved infrastructure and services, far-western and mid-western regions remain underserved. Federalism was supposed to correct this imbalance by devolving power and budgetary authority, but execution has been weak and inconsistent. In practice, local governments often lack the fiscal autonomy and administrative capacity to deliver.

The migration trap

Nepal’s economy is heavily dependent on remittances, which account for roughly 20–25 percent of GDP. Millions of young Nepalis work abroad—primarily in the Gulf, Malaysia and India—due to the lack of domestic employment. While remittances provide a lifeline for many families and boost foreign currency reserves, this dependence masks structural weaknesses in the economy.

Migration has become a coping strategy rather than a choice. The labor force is being exported while industries at home remain stagnant. Youth unemployment remains high, and Nepal risks a demographic dividend turning into a demographic liability. Moreover, skilled and semi-skilled workers leave, causing a brain drain that weakens sectors such as education, healthcare, and technology.

Instead of creating decent jobs at home through investment in agriculture modernization, industrial policy, or tech-based entrepreneurship, successive governments have leaned on remittances as a substitute for real economic reform. This is unsustainable in the long term.

Entrenched leadership, excluded innovation

A key barrier to economic transformation is the lack of fresh and dynamic political leadership. The same cadre of leaders who steered Nepal through the post-conflict period still dominates the political landscape, often recycling positions across parties. Their economic vision remains limited, with little appetite for bold reforms.

This stagnation discourages younger and more innovative actors from entering politics. Women, youth, and marginalized communities remain underrepresented in leadership roles despite formal quotas. Meanwhile, emerging civic movements and independent candidates calling for clean politics and economic innovation are gaining traction but remain peripheral in power structures.

Federalism sans fiscal clarity

The shift to federalism was intended to make governance more responsive and tailored to local needs. Economically, it should have allowed provinces and municipalities to better manage resources, set local development priorities and attract investment. In reality, intergovernmental coordination has been poor, and fiscal devolution remains shallow.

Revenue-sharing mechanisms are opaque, and local bodies often depend on conditional grants from the federal government. This hinders their ability to plan and execute economic projects independently. Overlapping mandates between tiers of government further complicate service delivery, undermining both efficiency and accountability.

A work in progress

Despite these challenges, Nepal’s democratic journey is not a failure but a work in progress. There are significant achievements to build on: regular elections, a free press and an active civil society. What is needed now is a shift from procedural democracy to performance democracy—one that translates political freedom into economic opportunity.

To do this, political leaders must embrace transparency and reform, starting with anti-corruption enforcement and electoral finance regulation. Economic policy must be future-oriented: investing in infrastructure, promoting local industries, expanding vocational training and diversifying exports. Innovation, not emigration, should be the engine of Nepal’s economy.

Fiscal federalism must be clarified to empower local governments to plan and deliver. Civic education should be strengthened to build economic literacy and citizen engagement, especially among the youth. Above all, leadership must open up to new voices who can combine democratic values with entrepreneurial thinking.

Conclusion

Nepal’s democratic experiment has brought political inclusion and civic freedoms, but it has yet to deliver widespread economic transformation. The gap between promise and performance is wide—but not irreversible. With political will, institutional reforms and a strategic economic vision, Nepal can build a democracy that doesn’t just represent its people, but also empowers them economically.

Tinkune-Kathmandu tear-gas, firing and fatalities labelled as a political clash of ideologies. Birgunj stone pelting from mosques, curfew during Hindu festival summed up as communal violence. Are these just standalone events or a wake-up call for Nepal and a Nepali’s identity? Amidst these events, one wonders what a Nepali identity is and who preserves, nurtures and safeguards.

In a mere gap of 15 days, Kathmandu and Birgunj witnessed ideological clashes, violence between two opposing sides, injuries to people, and attacks on public property. However, the coverage and response/reaction to the two events differed. Can these events be pushed under the veil of a “popular narrative” to be shoved away with minimal actions or are these early warning signals for the State and the civil society to pause and reflect with an open mind?

Did anyone make a genuine effort to analyze these events independently without any prejudice or bias? Neither of these events can be analyzed with a background of pro and against-monarchy nor blaming any talk of Hindu rights as Hindutva surge in Nepal. These events should also not be judged through the lens of mere political order change or a coloured view of minority rights. It would also not be fair to judge these events from the lens of Madhes, known for movement for ethnic/caste rights or from Kathmandu where the Western agenda can be seen influencing the decision making.  

Anarchism

The new word in the Nepali discourse during the March 28 event was “Anarchism” for any voice against the establishment on the streets. This reference isn’t a mere fad. Regrettably, the next governments may end up using this term more frequently and term any agitator or opposition as an anarchist and suppress dissent. The self-inflicted fear of dissent for the sitting government was so much so that a curious passerby standing next to demonstrators or expressing an opinion as a witness or sharing one’s free views was also labelled as an anarchist. What could be more brutal in a country’s timeline when a countryman terms a fellow Nepali an anarchist? Is that not a breakdown of social cohesiveness? The use of expletives or character assassination was commonly seen in public discourse. Politicians blamed civil society for downfall in moral character and civil society blamed politicians for going to extremes in curbing opposition or any other political ideology. There has been widespread misuse of the political landscape under democratic systems where power sharing among mainstream parties has given 17 years of asymmetrical and non-performing coalition governments.

Domestic colonization 

Experts say why a Nepali complaint when the country has performed well on indicators of growth and progress. It was a need of the hour to find out more about the state of affairs if that merits attention. The reasoning was an eye-opener:

• Some say they are unhappy when a lifetime cadre of Nepali Congress believing in democratic values has to vote for a communist coalition leader. Nepali people often turn around and ask, “Can you imagine what will happen if BJP and Congress form a two-third majority government in India?” 
• People say their lifestyles have improved over decades, but they cannot comprehend when asked to vote for those who inflicted wounds during the armed conflict. 
• Nepali people talk about the pain of armed conflict, the loss of identity, loved ones and belongings. They say money doesn’t heal the attack on self-respect when forced to flee, abandoning their land in search of security.

The pain of Maoist-led conflict has not healed a common Nepali till date. A fellow Nepali turns away without empathy to others’ pain as one must stand by the political party one is in charge of. Nepali people are divided today as followers of one political party against the other. It is not an angry society, but a lack of social cohesiveness has made them isolated and indifferent to each other.

Nepalis are known globally to be a resilient society. If any reader is thinking about excessive social media outbursts or attacks on each other’s opinion, one will concur that being vocal is a different issue. But being tolerant and waiting for a better tomorrow is natural for a Nepali. The revolt builds up with that inherent silence and perhaps explains the insecurity in their words attacking each other’s identity. 

The conflict gave birth to an insecure and traumatized commoner who couldn’t prevent the rise of misrule across the country since the dethronement of Gyanendra Shah in 2008. The democratic journey started off well but soon turned into the hegemony of a handful of leaders, who shared power by turns. The development agenda over the years was marred by public sector projects tainted with policy level corruption and nepotism. 

Unless the cup of dissatisfaction overflows, Nepali people do not take it to the streets. Once they do, they collectively raise their demands as was seen in a recent teachers’ protest in April 2025. The protest led to the resignation of the Education Minister but the demand for the New Education Bill is still in jeopardy. Sooner or later, these collective protest voices are divided by those with vested interests and the protest starts falling apart. Eventually, another committee or a commission is formed to give them a false sense of hope which may last another decade before any resolution. The stakeholders may feel happy that the protests died, but do not forget that in an inner core of a Nepali teacher, there remains a fire of rejection for their due rights, respect and identity. Occupying streets does not mean change in the short run. They ungroup and group again unless a determined and notable collective emerges firmly to stand up against undue pressures and manipulative tactics of those with vested interests. The same has happened to the case of “Meter Byaj”  (loan shark) victims. Especially, in rural areas, a significant portion of the population relies on informal lenders who extract as high as 30-120 percent or more interest per annum. However, the argument of misuse of microfinance lending is only being used for political vendetta and not for the relief of the victims. A commoner Nepali says, “We have been subjugated as slaves by our leaders. We were never colonized by a foreign state, but today politicians and microfinance companies have been extracting our sweat and blood.” 

The current state of misgovernance has led to a degradation of national public and private institutions and an unchecked surge of foreign education and charitable/development institutions. The reality today is that most Nepali youths want jobs in international non-governmental organizations and leave Nepal for studies abroad. There is also a surge in migrant labor. Ironically, both the government and international organizations were recently seen applauding the increase in remittances as good news for the economy. However, none analyzed how an overly-remittance-dependent economy is a sustainable model. A country populated by old people will lead to lower productivity. Is that “Asal Nepal”? 

It was often said that the Maoist insurgency had the character of impunity where the local administration facilitated the acts of brutality on local people. The role of administration and police during the events of March 28 characterized by fatalities and injuries and lack of government’s willingness to institute an independent inquiry despite direction of the parliamentary committees leads people to compare impunity then and now. With such heavy questions, no Nepali thinks of which political system is good or bad. They do not trust facts and figures even if someone showcases progress under different political ideologies. They simply add up unchecked corruption by constitutional agencies, political vendetta against opposition leaders and interference of the political parties in key appointments. There are no easy answers to today’s anger, helplessness and anxiety among people. 

The events and the open questions

Kathmandu political demonstration (March 28)

On the call of the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP), a rally and a janasabha (public gathering) were called at Tinkune, Kathmandu on March 28. Over the last few years, the RPP, the fourth-largest party in the 2022 elections, has been raising voices occasionally for the return of the constitutional monarchy and Hindu Rastra. However, in an unusual development in 2025, former king Gyanendra Shah and former crown princess Himani Shah were suddenly active on social media with their appeal to 30m Nepalis to rebuild the nation, restore governance and uphold Nepal first. Since his dethronement in 2008, the former king had rarely spoken on the national agenda in public and was mostly seen during festivities or public appearances. The change since Feb 2025 was more visible. In hindsight, one can say it was more of form than substance. However, RPP, with the former king’s tacit support, announced a movement to bring back monarchy and Hindu state. Whether this movement will sustain, only time will tell. 

The March 28 events turned out to be ugly and violent and the RPP Janasabha could barely take-off. It has been reported in the media that the crowds went unruly, a section turned into mobs, and the state police had to resort to the use of force and ammunition. Social media posts were full of videos and accounts of violence and injuries. However, the veracity of these videos and claims had to be independently verified. Despite an outcry, the public appeared to be divided on the need for an independent investigation. In a nutshell, the country was divided into multiple identities to counter or defend the events and outcome of March 28. It wasn’t clear what the insecurity was all about. It may be time to conclude that signs of one Nepali against another Nepali’s identity were emerging.

Sadly, the events of March 28 culminated in media and government prejudging, and, without independent and fair investigation, affixing responsibility for violence and vandalism on the former king. 

The number of police personnel deployed, and the amount of arms and ammunition used did not meet a normal eye. What was the real motive behind heavy deployment? 

The question that remains unanswered to date is—does the change in political order, going back to constitutional monarchy bring newer experienced leaders who will uphold national interest and ensure ethics in politics? Or would the same parliamentarians be back in the system? 

Parsa–Birgunj Hanuman Jayanti (April 12)

On April 12, Hindu devotees gathered for Hanuman Jayanti Shobha Yatra (Hindu procession with deity) in Birgunj. The city echoed with spiritual bhajans and rejoicing devotees could be seen on the streets. Eminent persons from society, including the chief district officer and senior police officers joined the Shobha Yatra. Shops, houses, and every nook and corner of the city was decorated. But once the procession reached Idhgah Chowk in the Chappakiya locality, a Muslime neighborhood, they came under a heavy attack. Stones were pelted, injuring several devotees and a senior police officer. Stone pelting from the rooftop of the mosque and neighbouring Muslim houses continued. Hindu devotees retaliated and ran for safety. In a matter of hours, the auspicious and joyous atmosphere turned violent and was given the coverage as clashes between two ideologies followed by curfew orders. Many locals in Birgunj asked when Hindu leaders organize the Iftar for Muslim leaders, why is there no stone pelting on the Iftar celebrations? In one news report, it was said that during the winter, the city mayor had donated warm heaters to mosques, but there was no stone pelting by Muslim youths on the mayor at that time. In one of the videos on social media, an old Muslim resident from Chhapakiya can be seen saying that Hindu processions shouldn’t pass through Muslim-dominant areas. Ironically, Hindus say they have never resorted to such exclusions when the Muslim Daah festival takes on streets. One person remarked, “Has there been any curfew during the Daah? If not, then why does no one speak for Hindus in their land?”

Conclusion

Identity is a fact that doesn’t need a conclusion. Being proud of the civilizational Sanatan identity does not in any way diminish the coexistence of multi-ethnic and multi-religious society of Nepal. Also, the choice of any political system, a democratic republic / Hindu Rashtra / Constitutional Monarchy should also not inhibit dialogue or community conversations. Social cohesiveness enables dialogue and resolution. However, social cohesiveness flows from being proud of one’s roots. The lines of insecurity disappear with openness to hear others’ views and opinions. 

Last but not the least, preserving democracy does not mean abuse of power, misuse of the State’s institutions, laws and regulations to curb dissent or voice of opposition and sending opposition leaders to prison. Currently, Nepal’s two-thirds majority government with the two leading political parties of the 2022 General Elections is running more as political parties than a government. Political polarization has snatched a Nepali identity from a national. They are so polarized and regrettably myopic that the country is running with diffused lines of identity, no long term vision of national priorities and fragile national security. The global powers know very well the strategic importance of the Himalayan state but the Nepali leadership and civil society have lost interest in  safeguarding “Asal Nepal”.

In the meanwhile, if nothing changes, the national leaders will run the country effectively with misgovernment while the foreign powers will contest their dirty games in Nepal.

The author is a financial, security and geopolitical analyst

For a long time, I kept seeing this short phrase—TL;DR—and honestly, I thought it was some kind of mistake. I would read detailed posts, spend time with the content and at the bottom of the text, I would see this strange combination of letters. For days, I ignored it, thinking it was a typo or an inside joke. One day, though, I got curious and decided to check it out. I asked, “What does this mean?”

It stood for “Too Long; Didn’t Read”, I found out.

I smiled. At first, it was a little funny. I had been spending time with the content, reading carefully, only to find that others were saying, “This is too much. Just give me the short version.” But as I thought about it more deeply, I realized that this phrase—TL;DR—is not just a shortcut. It’s a reflection of how people think and process information today.

As someone who values technology, this is not a criticism of the tools themselves. Digital tools are powerful, they connect us, give instant access to knowledge and open new ways of learning. Technology has brought great convenience. We can access information easily, read articles, watch tutorials and learn new ideas from our devices. But as we use these tools, we must not lose the older, slower ways of thinking. Reading carefully, reflecting slowly and spending time with ideas without rushing used to be normal. There is a kind of wisdom that only comes with patience—allowing ourselves to sit with complex thoughts and reflect deeply. It’s a process that can’t be rushed. Ideas shape us when we truly engage with them, not when we skim quickly.

Deep learning is not just about collecting information. It’s about thinking carefully, challenging ourselves and reflecting. When we always look for shortcuts and quick answers, we risk missing the real depth that leads to true understanding. This connects with something Jonathan Haidt discusses in The Anxious Generation. Haidt mainly talks about how constant digital distractions hurt the mental health of young people. But the problem is bigger. Haidt describes how our attention has become fragmented. We are constantly interrupted, scrolling from one thing to another. It’s hard to stay focused for long. This doesn’t affect only young people—it affects all of us.

As a teacher, I see this every day. Students often ask for the main point, the takeaway, the summary. They want quick answers. I understand why—life moves fast, and there is too much information. But when we prioritize speed over depth, something important is lost. Quick answers can be helpful, but they do not build real understanding. Heidegger’s idea of “enframing” (or Gestell) helps explain why this happens. According to Heidegger, modern technology doesn’t just help us—it shapes how we see the world. Instead of engaging with the world, we start treating everything, including ourselves, as resources to be optimized and quickly understood. This mindset can be useful, but it also makes it harder to see the full complexity of life. Even knowledge becomes something we just consume, not something we live with.

So, when we say “Too Long; Didn’t Read,” what are we really saying? Maybe it’s not just that something is too long. Maybe we feel we don’t have the time or the focus to deal with complexity. It shows how we have become used to simple, easy answers. But life—and important ideas—are rarely simple. Our relationships, our ethics, our emotions, and our understanding of truth cannot be reduced to a few sentences. The most important parts of life—grief, love, beauty, truth—unfold slowly, and require time and reflection.

When I first learned what TL;DR stood for, it reminded me of something bigger. Are we, in our rush for quick answers, losing the ability to stay with deep thoughts and ideas? Are we trading depth for speed? Are we forgetting that the most important things cannot be captured in a quick summary? Now, whenever I see TL;DR, I feel a little conflicted. It’s helpful, of course, especially when life is busy. But it’s also a small reminder: “You might be missing something important. Something that doesn’t fit into a summary.” It reminds me that not everything in life should be shortened. Some truths demand that we slow down and stay with them. We can use digital tools to help our thinking, but we must not let them replace deep, reflective learning. We can enjoy the benefits of speed, but we must also protect the practices of slow, careful thought. Some things in life simply cannot be captured in a summary. Some truths need us to take our time. 

In the teachings of Advaita Vedanta, the importance of deep focus is central. True understanding is not something we can quickly consume or grasp with speed; it demands sustained attention, contemplation, and patience. Meditation, or dhyana, is not limited to sitting in a monastery or retreat; it is about cultivating focused awareness in our everyday lives. Real insight arises not through shortcuts, but through steady engagement, allowing the mind to become still, open and deeply attentive. As we navigate the complexities of life and knowledge, we must remember that quick answers and summaries may offer convenience, but true insight comes through concentration, reflection and the willingness to sit with complexity. The most important aspects of life, whether it’s love, truth or wisdom, unfold only when we give them the attention and time they deserve.

In the rush of the modern world, let us not forget that some things cannot be reduced to a soundbite. As Advaita Vedanta teaches, the deeper truth is often revealed only when we are willing to look beyond the surface and focus with patience. We can use digital tools to enhance our learning, but we must also protect the practices of deep, reflective thought. Some truths require us to take our time and, in doing so, we connect not just with knowledge—but with something greater.

The growing public support for the reinstatement of the monarchy and Hindu state reflects the failure of the current political system to meet people’s expectations in the aftermath of big political changes. It signals that the dramatic political changes between 2006 and 2015 have failed to deliver on the promises of stability, inclusion and economic opportunity. In less than a decade, Nepal transitioned from a monarchy to a federal democratic republic, from a Hindu kingdom to a secular state, and from an exclusionary to an inclusive governance framework. These changes raised hopes that democratic transformation would lead to economic progress and political stability. But nearly a decade later, those expectations have largely remained unfulfilled. The resulting disillusionment has opened the door for royalist forces to re-enter the political stage to advance their long-standing agendas. 

Departure from the past

While royalist protests are not new, recent developments mark a significant departure from the past. On March 9, former King Gyanendra returned to Kathmandu after a week-long vacation in Pokhara. An estimated 14,000 people gathered to welcome him at the airport—likely the largest pro-monarchy rally since the monarchy was abolished in 2008. This show of support alarmed mainstream political parties, especially in light of the rising unrest seen in other South Asian countries mainly like Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.  For the first time, major political parties see treating the royalist movement as a serious threat. On March 28, a large pro-monarchy demonstration in Kathmandu turned violent, resulting in two deaths and extensive property damage. The government responded with a crackdown, arresting several leaders of the movement. Although this initially weakened the protest, royalists have since regrouped and announced an indefinite protest in Kathmandu from May 29.

Why is the call for monarchy growing?

There are multiple reasons behind the growing surge of pro-Monarchy protests.

First, although all governments formed after the 2015 constitution came through free and fair elections, meeting the basic criterion for democratic legitimacy, they have failed to deliver governance, economic development and public services. Corruption, inefficiency and lack of accountability have disillusioned voters. Though the system has electoral legitimacy, it lacks performance legitimacy which is equally important for the sustainability of any political system.

There is growing disappointment with the key leaders of major political parties who were once admired for their role in bringing democracy. Many now see them as entrenched in power, having dominated politics for over three decades without delivering meaningful changes. After the promulgation of the constitution in 2015, the public hoped that political parties would reform, become more democratic internally, and respond better to people’s needs. 

However, those hopes were dashed. 

The 2022 election signaled a public desire for alternatives to traditional political forces. New parties and some independent candidates emerged with unexpected success. For instance, the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) became the fourth largest party in parliament with a platform focused on governance reform. In Kathmandu and Dharan, independent candidates won the mayoral race, defeating the common candidates of major political parties. Similarly, developments were seen in the Tarai-Madhesh region where new forces gained ground. However, these new parties could not form a government due to insufficient parliamentary numbers.  Feeling threatened, the traditional parties began consolidating power to resist these emerging forces. In July 2024, two largest parties in parliament, Nepali Congress (NC) and CPN-UML, formed a coalition government, promising political stability and development. However, the alliance has already become unpopular due to its failure to deliver on those promises.

Second, there was a hope that major political changes would open up economic opportunities for the people. However, those expectations have largely gone unmet, and instead, the country’s economy has further stagnated. While moderate economic growth might have helped support the transition to a republic, the economy has failed to gain momentum. Many believe that the federal structure further strained the nation’s resources, adding pressure to an already fragile economy. Though economy is not a determinant factor in any democracy, it does play a vital role to cement democratic values. 

One of the most pressing issues is the failure to create sufficient job opportunities within the country. As a result, large numbers of Nepalis are going abroad to seek jobs and quality education. Domestic universities, weakened by political interference, have seen a sharp decline in quality. Key sectors of the economy—agriculture, manufacturing and tourism—are underperforming. 

Third, after the adoption of the new constitution in 2015, people hoped that the chronic political instability that has plagued the country since 1990 would finally come to an end. It was widely believed that with political freedom secured, future governments would focus on social and economic development. But instead of evolving in line with the constitution, political parties continued to engage in power struggles, internal factionalism and the politicization of state institutions.  The focus is still on changing governments rather than improving governance. They are putting blame on the current electoral system stating that it would not allow a single-party majority. In a diverse country like Nepal,  we cannot and should not remove the Proportional Representation (PR) system.  But people are not convinced, especially since parties have failed to maintain stable governments even when holding majorities. This persistent instability has bred anger, disillusionment and frustration among the people. As a result, more are now willing to consider undemocratic alternatives, reflected in the growing support for pro-monarchy forces. 

Way forward for parties

This growing support for royalist forces reflects the deepening unpopularity of the major political parties. Former King Gyanendra, who had remained largely silent for years, has recently become more vocal about his intent to return to power, adding to the pressure on these parties.  Over the past few months, Nepal has witnessed an increasingly stark divide between pro-monarchy and pro-republic sentiments, something not seen since the abolition of monarchy in 2008. In response, the current government led by the first and second largest parties in parliament have taken a suppressive approach to deal with pro-Monarchy protests. Rather than resorting to repression, mainstream political parties must focus on delivering real results and addressing public grievances. This is the only suitable way to restore public trust and safeguard the existing political system. Miserable political and economic performances of the successive governments after 2015 or even earlier is the time factor behind the current scenario. Instead of delving into conspiracy theories,  deliver on the promises of stability, inclusion and economic opportunity.