“Our king, our country—dearer than life.” Till 35 years ago, such slogans were captivating and cherished. The king’s birthday was celebrated with great pomp and ceremony. High honorifics like Badamaharajdhiraj, Mausuf, Hajur, and Junaf would lend the then rulers an aura of invincibility and supreme self-satisfaction. The entire nation was viewed as a family estate. People were considered less as citizens, more as mere subjects—raiti. One generation—enthralled by these privileges and servility, now in the twilight of its life, while some of its retainers are still active in the country’s politics. Under the patronage of this group, royalists are making a mild attempt to reemerge. While these movements exist to some extent, few media outlets provide them with disproportionately high visibility.

Time is powerful. Even Gyanendra Shah, who put extreme restrictions on civil liberties during his rule, now often laments the government’s authoritarian tendencies. The same Shah, who showed no particular concern when dozens of citizens were killed during the days of monarchy, now pretends a heartfelt act of concern when violence erupts during demonstrations. Perhaps this is how ageing maturity reacts. In his days, the media was muzzled with army generals censoring news, and political leaders were placed under house arrest by the same figures who now hesitate not in saying the government is suppressing them. This might be the unique beauty of democracy: No matter how wrong one has acted, they reserve the right to object if they feel others have done wrong. Only democracy is so magnanimous that even if a person has spent their life amassing stolen wealth, they can still appeal to the government for protection and the return of property if someone else re-steals it. This is the sweetness that royalists and the ex-king are now sipping from.

Inappropriate references

Some individuals, with futile claims, are demanding the restoration of the monarchy. Eminent political thinkers and philosophers occasionally argue that politics always contains infinite and extraordinary possibilities. Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, in his book On Politics, describes six forms of cyclical government change, arguing that when democracy becomes ineffective, it can make way for monarchy. Indeed, in vastly different circumstances, monarchy was restored in Britain (1660), Spain (1978), France (1815) and Cambodia (1993). However, in Nepal’s case, no such basis or necessity exists. The monarchy has already become a footnote in history books. Those who cite these examples of monarchic restoration in other countries conveniently ignore that monarchy has been permanently replaced in nearly a hundred other countries. And after the monarchy ended here, democracy even generously allowed the former royal family to remain in the country—an act of magnanimity they seem to overlook.

Let’s not overlook

It has not been long since the monarchy was overthrown. The general populace has already accepted its departure. Even the main parties that once chanted monarchic slogans are neither sincere nor loyal to it. Politics is not like a math formula, where multiplying two negatives makes a positive. Even if the current system has not delivered the expected outcomes, advocating for a return to a worse system is seldom correct. The characters the monarchy would elevate are well-known to the people. Their personal qualities and dignity are in deep deficit altogether. Citizens neither trust them nor believe them. In today’s world, rule by an individual is no longer acceptable, especially a system where a person becomes ruler by virtue of being born into a particular family.

Around the time of Nepal’s unification, the palace was poorer than the people. It is well known that weapons were purchased with funds collected from the citizens. That is why Prithvi Narayan Shah said, “When the people prosper, the palace remains strong.” But in 11 generations since, the palace became immensely wealthy, wallowing in privilege by fencing out the people. No system other than democracy can truly empower citizens with rights and sovereignty. In areas like education, health, roads, communications and international standing, Nepal has made significant progress in this democratic era. Nepal has seen greater, more inclusive progress during the democratic era than under the monarchy. Advocating for monarchy as an alternative to democracy would be self-defeating.

In democracies, leadership can sometimes appear weak and confused; this has indisputably happened in our case. Some of our political parties are even developing royalist tendencies, which has bred boundless distrust and frustration among citizens. Leaders must make stronger and more dedicated efforts to meet people’s expectations. Citizens will now only support political movements that put forward a clear blueprint for national development and enlist the help of thousands of capable, skilled, experienced, innovative and technically-sound citizens. A politics that tries to project just one individual as the saviour, like in a movie, is not acceptable. If anyone comes to politics with a list of at least 10,000 able and responsible cream-minded experts and a plan to engage them, that would be worth paying attention to. Otherwise, citizens have no faith in anyone’s empty talk, neither the ex-king nor those who want him back, nor anyone else.

Most parties today, while canvassing, claim: We overthrew the Rana regime, brought democracy, and established the republic. However, nearly 2.5 million voters, who have no impression of the 2006/07 (2062/63 BS) movement at all, will vote this year. About 70 percent of voters don’t possess any deep engagement or memory of the 1990 (2046 BS) movement either. So, who is still left to be swayed by tales of the monarchy’s glory days?

Nowadays, most of the youth are in love, affectionately calling their partners ‘king’ and ‘queen’. Even a famous commercial film Chhakka Panja hosts a character titled ‘King’ in every sequel. The only kings and queens that are still relevant today are those in love or in cinema. Apart from that, talk of restoring monarchy is nothing more than an illusion. Whether kings and queens should exist in cinema or in romance is a matter of personal or professional choice for the respective love-birds and the filmmakers. However, there’s absolutely no way back for the ex-King to power.