The Tensions of Monarchy and Democracy in Nepal

Nepal’s government considers action against ex-King Gyanendra Shah, reducing his security, amid political turmoil between monarchists and republicans.

Nepal is back at the crossroads politically, with the government coalition and pro-monarchy elements locked in tension. The recent call by leaders of the Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML) and the Nepali Congress for the arrest of the erstwhile King Gyanendra Shah has set the country’s House of Representatives on fire. The crisis flared after violent confrontations occurred during pro-monarchy demonstrations last Friday, which called for firm government action against the ex-monarch.

However, the demand for Gyanendra Shah’s arrest has been met with strong resistance from the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP), a pro-monarchy group in Parliament. Their members accused Prime Minister K P Sharma Oli’s government of excessive force in handling the protests. The heated parliamentary session led to an adjournment, underlining the deep divide between Nepal’s republican and monarchist factions.

This scenario indicates a resurfacing of Nepal’s ancient political conflicts. Nepal ended its monarchy in 2008 and converted into a federal democratic republic. However, more than ten years down the line, a sizeable chunk of the populace still demands the return of the monarchy, with an expression of dissatisfaction with the current government and politics and also claiming political instability. The latest demonstrations point to increasing monarchist forces, undermining the legitimacy of the republican state.

The government, which has come under pressure from ruling CPN-UML, is said to be considering drastic action against the ex-King. According to a top government source, actions like arrest or house arrest are on the table. In a significant development, the authorities have also scaled down the security detail that guards Gyanendra Shah, reducing the strength of the security personnel at his private palace, Nirmal Niwas, to 16 from 25.

RPP leaders, such as ex-Deputy Prime Minister Kamal Thapa, openly defied the government’s position. The defiant declaration of Thapa, “The government can come and arrest me any time because I am a monarchist,” shows the intensifying tensions and polarization in Nepal’s politics. His assertion indicates the extent of the ideological conflict, where the government perceives monarchy as a threat to the republic, while pro-monarchists deem the government as a repressive force against their ideology.

This conflict asks important questions of Nepal’s path to democracy. While democracy would be expected to include various political ideologies, the aggressive response from the ruling coalition against pro-monarchy elements creates a suspicion that there is something more at work than an attempt to build inclusive politics. Should Nepal’s ruling elite be respectful of democratic process, it should balance enforcement with tolerance for political opposition.

The next few days will show how this political standoff is handled. If the government goes ahead with action against Gyanendra Shah, it will further isolate a section of the population that still looks up to the monarchy. Alternatively, inaction could encourage monarchist forces, creating long-term instability.

Nepal is at a decisive crossroads where its democratic endurance will be put to the test. The answer lies in creating communication, providing equitable governance, and resolving public grievances without compromising basic rights. Nepal’s democratic future will be decided by how it handles this crisis and its precedent-setting character will be shaped for ideological divides in the future.