For nearly two decades, Nepal has lived as a republic, having abolished its centuries-old monarchy in 2008 following a bloody civil war and years of political turmoil. At the time, the decision reflected the popular mood: people wanted to escape what they saw as the monarchy’s authoritarian tendencies and to embrace democracy as a path toward stability, prosperity, and equality. Yet in 2025, a growing movement is again calling for the monarchy’s return. Why, after so much effort to dismantle royal rule, is the idea of reinstating a king resonating once more?
The Democratic Promise That Fell Short
When the monarchy was dissolved, expectations were sky-high. A federal democratic republic was supposed to guarantee accountability, transparency, and development. Instead, many Nepalis feel betrayed. The past 17 years have been marked by political instability, with frequent changes of government, fragile coalitions, and leaders more preoccupied with maintaining power than solving people’s problems.
Corruption scandals and allegations of nepotism plague nearly every administration. Public frustration deepened as promises of clean governance and rapid development failed to materialize. For young people, especially, democracy came to look less like a path forward and more like an endless cycle of broken pledges.
Economic Struggles and Disillusionment
Nepal’s economy has also compounded dissatisfaction. Unemployment remains high, many skilled workers migrate abroad, and inflation eats away at household incomes. For youth facing a lack of opportunities, democracy has delivered neither jobs nor hope.
Meanwhile, infrastructure development and basic public services lag. Roads remain poor, electricity is inconsistent in rural areas, and healthcare is underfunded. As frustration grows, some Nepalis now look nostalgically at the monarchy years, recalling them as times of relative stability, even if imperfect.
Cultural and Religious Identity
For many, the debate is not only political but also cultural. Under the monarchy, Nepal was officially a Hindu kingdom. Since becoming a republic, the country has been secular—a shift celebrated by some but resented by others. Those who see the monarchy as a guardian of Hindu identity argue that bringing back a king would also restore Nepal’s cultural essence.
This intertwines with broader anxieties about globalization, cultural erosion, and national identity. The monarchy, as a centuries-old institution, symbolizes continuity and rootedness in tradition.
The Role of Political Actors
The Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP), Nepal’s main pro-monarchy force, has been actively campaigning for restoration. It organizes rallies, taps into popular discontent, and frames monarchy as an alternative to corrupt politicians. The party insists that Nepal does not need an absolute monarchy but a constitutional monarchy, where the king would serve as a unifying symbol above partisan divides.
Even beyond the RPP, ordinary citizens in protests often chant royalist slogans. This suggests that the monarchy issue is no longer confined to fringe politics but is reentering mainstream debate.
The Symbol of Gyanendra Shah
Though stripped of power, former King Gyanendra Shah still draws attention. For some, he represents a father figure who could restore order. For others, he symbolizes the failures of the past. His very image is polarizing: army officials photographed under his portrait have sparked nationwide debate.
Crucially, younger generations who never experienced monarchy directly often perceive it through stories—sometimes idealized, sometimes critical. To them, monarchy represents an alternative to the chaos they see today.
Obstacles to Restoration
Despite the rising sentiment, bringing back the monarchy faces formidable hurdles. Nepal’s 2015 constitution enshrines the federal democratic republic as the state system. Reversing it would require parliamentary approval, large-scale constitutional changes, and broad consensus—difficult in a fractured political environment.
There is also deep resistance. Many Nepalis fear monarchy’s return would mean regression, authoritarianism, or suppression of freedoms. Memories of past abuses remain vivid. Any attempt at restoration could provoke polarization or even violence.
Why Now?
Several recent developments have amplified calls for monarchy:
- The controversial social media ban, which sparked deadly youth-led protests, highlighted government heavy-handedness.
- Rising costs of living, joblessness, and corruption scandals eroded public trust further.
- A leadership vacuum—with no political leader inspiring confidence—left room for monarchy’s symbolic appeal.
Together, these factors created fertile ground for royalist ideas to resurface.
Nepal’s monarchy debate is less about longing for a king and more about frustration with the system that replaced him. For many, monarchy represents stability, cultural pride, and an alternative to corrupt politicians. For others, it represents the failures of the past that Nepalis fought hard to escape.
The question Nepal faces is not only whether monarchy should return, but whether the current democratic system can reform itself enough to win back the people’s trust. Unless governance improves, calls for monarchy—and other alternatives—will likely only grow louder.
About The Author
