Nepal ’s major political forces are on a collision course challenging the existence of each other. Just a day after Nepali Congress decided to endorse a provision to amend its party constitution giving up its five-decades-long commitment to constitutional monarchy, King Gyanendra’s interview given to government media further fueled the march in the course of collision. The messages of these two events are clear as they have shattered the immediate hopes for reconciliation between the constitutional forces. By amending its stand on constitutional monarchy, Nepali Congress, country’s oldest centrist party – has carried the slogan, which had hitherto been championed by extreme leftists. Similarly, King Gyanendra’s interview has also widened the differences.

Amid the c urrent controversy regarding the monarchy, both the sides seem to have failed to make clear distinction between an individual monarch and a long-standing institution of monarchy in Nepal . The monarch also seems to be equating himself with the institution of monarchy and the political parties also seem to be mistaking the individual monarch as the institution of monarchy and, thus, prepared to discard it. One can disagree with or criticize the functioning of an individual monarch at particular point of time but one cannot distance with the institution of monarchy itself. It is something like suggesting discarding political parties for the fault of incompetent leadership.

Monarchy as an institution has time-tested history of maintaining continuity and stability in the process of modernization in Nepal . Likewise, organized political forces have also showed that they can popularize monarchy and defend country’s national interests when given the opportunities to take part in popular politics. In the history of Nepal , monarchy has been a stabilizing factor even in moments of drastic political changes and political forces have benefited a lot from this in all phases of political change. Situated between Asia’s two major powers India and China , the importance of stability in Nepal guaranteed by the institution of monarchy is immense, particularly when Nepal ’s two neighbors have already expressed that prolonging anarchical situation and political instability here will ultimately threaten their own security interests. In the long history of monarchy in Nepal and, particularly, in the last 50 years, it is self-evident that the role of monarchy has been as a factor of ensuring continuity with stability.

People of Nepal have seen many different personalities of their monarch. But it is also equally true that the individual monarchs have very limited space of acting on their own way. All the time, there are public eyes upon the activities of the King, his family members, relations and influential coteries.  In every step, monarch in person is dependent upon institutions of state as well as the palace coteries. Even in the past autocratic age, King was not the lone figure to do and undo the matters relating to the state. In the modern democratic environment in Nepal , four successive Kings have gone through the ordeal, which clearly denotes the limited role of an individual in the context of other organs of the state. In a man, outlook without a sense of history goes very pessimistic by the development of present situation in Nepal especially relating to the role of monarchy. In a given situation, the change from institution of monarchy to republic may be worse than what one has at present. A degeneration of society sometimes finds fault with its own institutions. But in the absence of monarchy also states have been declared failed and such examples abound in Asia and Africa in recent past. Thanks to the stability and continuity guaranteed by the institution of monarchy, Nepal has not reached to the level of such failed states. It is, therefore, still possible to live and let live with monarchy and democracy.

Monarchy and democratic forces have already successfully worked together through elected representatives under this constitution and they still can effectively work under the democratically elected representatives. There are definitely stumbling blocks, known and unknown, which never want unity between the monarchy and the democratic forces. Whatever the situation, it is not so difficult if the King seriously feels the need of help and cooperation from major political forces. But this is not a one-way deal and the political forces, which have been involved in the constitutional process, may also have to feel the same intensity of need for help and cooperation of the King. Nepalese have listened to enough rhetoric from both the sides but overwhelming majority of people now want to see them speaking about the reality. One can simply wish that good sense prevails on both the sides together.