At a time when the rest of the world is focusing on emerging global challenges and novel ideas for spurring economic growth, Nepal is stuck in an age-old debate: Whether to restore monarchy or not.

First, we lost two decades to Maoist conflict and post-conflict political instability. Then we lost another decade to corruption, crony capitalism and a game of musical chairs played by three individuals. And now, we are seeing the prospect of losing another decade to a lost cause.

It is tiring to see Nepal bogged down by these forever wars of a different kind. Yet, Nepal’s mediascape is as much to blame as the political actors. We are refusing to focus on what really matters: growth, inclusion, rule of law and strengthening of institutions.

Bringing back monarchy will not help facilitate any of these agendas. In fact, it will only push back Nepal’s progress. In short, the restoration of monarchy is both difficult and irrelevant in our quest for growth, inclusion, rule of law and institution-building. It will detract us from our priorities and undermine our political philosophy.

A lost cause

Of course, there are arguments to be made for the monarchy's return. One is its capability to contribute to the balance of power and accountability. Another is its role in shoring up Nepal’s traditional identity as a nation founded by the Shah dynasty. Many people also hope that the monarchy's return can check the rampant corruption and strengthen Nepal’s nationalism.

Unfortunately, the restoration agenda is not going to work. Rather than addressing our current needs, reinstating monarchy will only muddy the waters, pushing back our aspirations further away from realisation.

Take the issue of economic growth. The debate around restoring monarchy will create a new kind of political conflict. It will invite political instability, amplify culture wars and resist greater economic connectivity with India.

At the moment, Nepal needs to forge a new kind of nationalism—one that is distinct from its traditional exclusionary state, isolationist policy and the fear of close economic connectivity with India.

If Nepal is to unleash growth, it must take economic connectivity in the region head on, developing its capacity to negotiate with India and China, argue for technological and investment neutrality, become part of regional and global supply chains and overcome its traditional siege mentality, particularly in relation to India and the West.

Although the monarchy appears to have an affinity with India’s Hindutva movement, the reality is that the Indian government is likely to steer away from the issue. In India, other than a few fringe players, there are no major political buyers of monarchy.

Economic growth also requires ending barriers to participation created by cronies and cartels, opening up Nepal’s market to new and young entrepreneurs and enhancing competitiveness. Restoration of monarchy is hardly our priority in view of Nepal’s economic growth.

Returning to monarchy is supposed to unite the nation, but history has shown that monarchy was the primary driver of an exclusionary state.

The debate around monarchy also detracts Nepali society from its core mission of greater democratisation and the rule of law. It shifts political focus away from priority reforms and relocates it to a lost cause. In the larger historical scheme, it will only be a waste of time.

It is difficult to imagine that a ceremonial monarchy will be less political than the three Presidents we’ve seen in the last two decades. They have been controversial and have sometimes overstepped their political boundaries or, at times, failed to play their due roles. If a monarch takes their place, it is certain to generate even more political conflict.

Resurgence of monarchy

The growing popularity of monarchy, in recent years, is the result of forces that caused its demise in the first place.

The first force was the Maoist movement, led by two individuals with strong convictions of the wrong kind, beset by the very “false consciousness” they were trying to uproot. Nepal missed the global “catch-up growth” phase, which coincided with the Maoist conflict, losing 20 years to political instability.

The second was the politics of identity. This movement was closely aligned with the Maoist politics and asserted the inclusion agenda. It asked the traditionally dominant upper-caste hill identity to sacrifice their “nationalism” in favour of inclusion and nationalism of the excluded communities. The result was the emergence of a new type of culture war and politics of identity.

The third force was the mainstream political parties, primarily the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML, which were seen as “abandoning” monarchy to break a political stalemate and to accommodate the interests of the Maoists and the Indian establishment of the time.

The fourth force was the Indian establishment of the time, which had deep-rooted differences with Nepal’s anti-Indian monarchy, symbolised by the 1989 blockade and the post-conflict difference with the then King Gyanenda regarding his hobnobbing with China.

In recent years, Nepal has seen a backlash against all these four processes. Nepal’s hill-centric nationalism has seen a resurgence; anti-Indian nationalism has grown; the popularity of the Maoists has dwindled; and the two largest parties are seen as embodiments of corruption and nepotism.

After the first post-constitution elections in late 2017, Nepal was supposed to embark on an economic growth agenda, but lost again to the whims of three political leaders and their game of musical chairs. During this period, corruption became even more rampant with an extractive kleptocracy embedding itself into Nepal’s polity.

The rise of Hindutva in India and growing frustration with corruption have facilitated the return of the repressed in Nepal. A discarded monarchy, looking for an opportunity to come back, has found a rag-tag group of rejects willing to support its agenda and a large public willing to suspend their disbelief, hoping to exact revenge on the bad actors of today’s politics.

At a time when we need to rise above forever culture wars and political stability, expecting the monarchy to solve our problems and drive the country forward in a path of economic growth is just a mirage. It is therefore better to close the chapter now than to waste several more years in political instability for a lost cause.