Reinstating the Monarchy in Nepal: Between Memory, Frustration, and Hope

Seventeen years after Nepal abolished its monarchy and transitioned into a federal democratic republic, the idea of restoring the monarchy is gaining renewed attention. While this notion may seem surprising to some, it is not entirely unexpected in the current political and economic context of the country. The calls for reinstating the monarchy are not just about longing for the past but are rooted in real, present-day frustrations among the people, particularly the youth.

Since 2008, Nepal has experienced a remarkable number of government changes—more than a dozen prime ministers in under two decades. This constant political turnover has hindered the state’s ability to maintain continuity in leadership, policy-making, and development efforts. Many citizens, especially in urban areas, have grown increasingly disillusioned with what is seen as a dysfunctional and corrupt political system. In 2024, for example, leadership crises within coalition governments led to further delays in key reforms, prompting protests and street rallies demanding change ( Human Rights Watch, 2025 )

These rallies, often organized by royalist groups, have gained attention for drawing significant crowds. Demonstrators have expressed dissatisfaction with inflation, unemployment, and the lack of accountability among elected leaders. Kathmandu and other major cities have become sites for these events, with many participants calling for a ceremonial monarchy as a stabilizing national symbol ( AP News, 2024: ).

One of the most pressing dimensions of this debate involves Nepal’s younger population. For many young people, the political system has failed to create avenues for growth, employment, and meaningful participation. Despite being raised in a republic, a significant number of young Nepalis feel excluded from the processes that shape their future. Frustrated with a system that seems unresponsive, many have opted to leave the country in search of better opportunities abroad. Nepal’s net migration rate in 2024 illustrates this trend clearly, with a notable outflow of skilled and educated youth (Nepal Journals Online:).

This situation has sparked an important reflection within Nepal’s youth movements. While few among the younger generation express direct support for the return of a monarch, many see the debate as an opportunity to question whether the current system is delivering on its promises. Their focus is not on reviving royal power, but on demanding dignity, effective governance, and a real voice in the country’s direction.

The monarchy question is also closely tied to Nepal’s evolving national identity. Before 2008, Nepal was officially a Hindu kingdom. The transition to a secular republic aimed to promote inclusivity and equal rights for all religious and ethnic groups. However, this shift remains a point of contention. Some groups feel that secularism weakened Nepal’s cultural foundations. Pro-monarchy demonstrations often combine calls for a return to kingship with calls for reinstating Nepal as a Hindu state (Reuters, 2025: ).

Supporters of secularism argue that Nepal’s current framework better reflects its diversity and protects minority rights. The tension between preserving traditional identity and embracing inclusive democracy is one of the core challenges Nepal faces as it continues to define itself in the 21st century. In this context, the monarchy debate is less about governance models and more about values—what Nepal represents, and for whom.

At its core, the renewed interest in monarchy seems to be a reaction to unmet expectations. After nearly two decades of democratic governance, many feel that the system has not lived up to its promises. Corruption, inefficiency, and lack of public trust have left a vacuum where older systems are now reconsidered not necessarily for their past, but for what they might symbolize—a more stable, unified nation.

However, the solution may not lie in looking backwards. Most citizens, particularly the youth, are not demanding a return to royal rule, but rather, a political environment that works. They are calling for leaders who listen, for institutions that function, and for a system that includes them in meaningful ways. Reinstating the monarchy may provide temporary symbolic comfort, but without structural reform, the underlying issues are likely to persist.

Ultimately, the monarchy debate in Nepal serves as a mirror, reflecting a broader crisis of confidence in public institutions. Whether or not the monarchy returns, what people are truly demanding is a political system that serves their needs, reflects their identities, and secures their future. It is a conversation not just about kings or constitutions, but about the kind of country Nepal wants to be.