 |
| Thousands of teachers protesting in Kathmandu against an education bill in parliament. Photo credit: @x.com/@airnewsalerts |
By Sanjay Upadhya
Nepal is facing a veritable season of discontent. Royalists are protesting for the reinstatement of the monarchy and Hindu statehood. Schoolteachers are agitating for the prompt implementation of legislation that addresses their longstanding concerns about job security, fair wages, and working conditions. They oppose an education reform bill in parliament, which they claim would shift government-run schools to local control, diminish their status, and eliminate many temporary teacher positions. And now, the education minister has resigned from the cabinet.
Key figures within the ruling establishment are blaming one another for the current disorder. Ten months ago, the coalition government of the Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist-Leninist and the Nepali Congress was formed on a platform to amend the constitution. However, it has taken no steps in that direction.
Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli is under renewed pressure following the sudden resignation of Education Minister Bidhya Bhattarai. Her resignation is said to stem from disagreements regarding the management of the teacher protests.
The ongoing demonstrations in Kathmandu and other cities illustrate years of frustration due to political mismanagement, economic hardships, and widespread corruption. Many Nepalis feel stuck in a never-ending political transition.
Since 1948, Nepal has had six constitutions before settling on the current one. The political systems have varied from Rana family rule to multiparty democracy and constitutional monarchy, palace-led non-party rule, and a restored multiparty democracy and constitutional monarchy.
In 2008, the nation significantly shifted from a monarchy to a federal and secular democratic republic, which created high hopes for extensive political change. However, persistent political instability raises serious concerns about the state of democracy in Nepal.
Enacting the current constitution in 2015 marked a significant advancement for inclusive governance. This fundamental law aimed to address longstanding structural inequalities by establishing a secular federal republic that distributes power and empowers historically marginalized communities.
A decade later, Nepal’s political landscape remains unstable. Failures within the government, rivalries among political groups, and a tendency to prioritize personal and group interests over the nation’s overall advancement have hindered the progress of democracy.
Internal strife among leading political parties has led to multiple leadership shifts within the executive branch. No party holds an absolute majority in parliament, and successive coalition governments have faced challenges in operating effectively.
Weak institutional growth has hindered both political parties and government agencies. Centralized decision-making among a limited group of senior leaders obstructs internal democratic processes. Excluding younger Nepalis from leadership roles has intensified public dissatisfaction. Many citizens believe that governance is becoming increasingly out of touch with the issues affecting the population.
The impact of federalism has varied significantly among the nation’s seven provinces. Local councils often encounter challenges due to limited resources, insufficient technical expertise, and restricted administrative independence. Furthermore, the central government’s reluctance to delegate substantial authority has led to inefficiencies and growing public dissatisfaction.
The ceremonial presidency, traditionally held by a senior party leader, has consistently failed to rise above partisan interests during pivotal times. Aspirations for an impartial institution to manage the nation’s turbulent politics have been thwarted. Many support the idea of a directly elected executive president, even as discussions continue about restoring the monarchy and establishing a Hindu state identity.
Royalists view the crown as a symbol of national unity and stability, aiming to restore the monarchy and strengthen Nepal’s identity as a Hindu state. They argue that Nepal has been excessively influenced by foreign powers, particularly India and the West, perceiving the monarchy as a means to reclaim sovereignty and enhance national identity. They assert that the loss of Hindu statehood has diminished the country’s traditions and uniqueness.
In his Nepali New Year’s Eve message on April 13, former king Gyanendra Shah outlined a political and economic roadmap to revitalize the country’s governance based on its traditions and values. Key figures within the ruling parties and strong advocates of the republican model recognize that the government must revise its approach to regain public favor. Nevertheless, they argue that reinstating the monarchy is not the solution.
Additionally, republicans maintain that restoring the monarchy is improbable because of inadequate political and public support, coupled with constitutional challenges. Although there have been royalist demonstrations, they argue that these initiatives are undermined by ineffective leadership and a lack of broad enthusiasm. Republicans further claim that historical controversies surrounding the monarchy obstruct its prospects for restoration.
Political instability continues to impact economic growth significantly. Slow investor confidence has resulted in ongoing delays in crucial infrastructure projects. Key sectors such as tourism, agriculture, and hydropower remain underutilized. Additionally, high youth unemployment and increasing labor migration pose alarming issues.
Like in other countries, the judiciary, civil society organizations, and media are crucial in enhancing accountability and transparency. However, their actions often face increasing criticism from Nepalis.
Nepalis are advocating for systemic change, effective governance, and inclusive development. Ongoing political unrest underscores the daily challenges encountered by a transitional democracy. However, the likelihood of meaningful reform appears to be waning.
