In recent days, the country has witnessed an intense debate about the possible return of the monarchy. As many analysts and observers have noted, despite the hype and speculation, there is no immediate or medium-term risk of the collapse of the republican order. Yet, it is undeniable that public frustration and discontent are mounting. There is a widespread perception—grounded in undeniable facts—that the economy and the overall state of national politics are in dire need of improvement.
Talk of the King’s return is merely a symptom of a broader malaise, and there is broad consensus on this assessment. The more difficult and intriguing question is what to do next: what can be done to drastically change the nation’s trajectory? There is no doubt that the three major political parties—the UML, Nepali Congress, and the Maoist Centre—bear a large share of responsibility. The concept of good governance seems elusive, almost alien to the minds of Nepal’s political leaders. Corruption and the unholy nexus among businesspeople, politicians, and bureaucrats have justifiably received much blame.
But ultimately, the real issue lies in the political culture of the country. We must ask ourselves: how can this be changed for the better? In the immediate term, the burden of finding a way forward lies with the top leadership of the three major parties. Ironically, the current atmosphere of public dissatisfaction could offer an opening to chart a new course. It is high time for Prime Minister K.P. Oli, Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal, and Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba to jointly commit to a gradual and dignified exit from active politics.
No one should dream of going against democracy: PM Deuba
Any successful politician inevitably falls prey to what I call the “indispensability syndrome”—the belief that they are too vital to step away, that the stakes are too high, and their leadership is irreplaceable. Given Nepal’s male-dominated political space, this sentiment is often deeply entrenched. Yet I genuinely believe that all three leaders care about the nation. And that’s precisely why now is the time for them to seriously consider retirement from political life.
This need not mean total withdrawal from public service. They can still contribute meaningfully to civil society. But how can this transition begin? Singapore’s experience offers one possible inspiration. Although vastly different from Nepal, the method employed by Singapore’s ruling People's Action Party (PAP) to transition senior politicians out of active politics may hold lessons. In Singapore, retiring prime ministers and senior leaders were appointed “Senior Ministers” in the cabinet. Currently, former Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong holds this position, as did his predecessors Goh Chok Tong and Lee Kuan Yew. I am not suggesting Nepal adopt this system wholesale, but rather proposing the need for bold, out-of-the-box thinking.
Having followed Nepali politics for years, I believe “creative” solutions are essential—ideas compelling enough to persuade the Big Three to consider new paths for their future. At a minimum, the three could publicly commit to stepping away from direct political leadership. Even if they exit in a dignified way, however, the deeply embedded political maneuvering and backroom deals will remain a challenge. New political parties may emerge, but they may also falter. The Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), despite lacking a coherent ideology and controversies around its founder, has demonstrated that capable politicians can propose strong, pragmatic policies.
Here, the responsibility lies not just with political parties, but also with the public. If citizens care about public interest and the common good, they must embrace the art of policymaking. This includes acquiring technical skills, understanding sector-specific issues, and engaging with best practices both locally and globally. Another route worth exploring is the empowerment of citizens—not just to influence decisions, but to become active participants in the process. Educated members of civil society should be encouraged to contribute ideas and recommendations. Moreover, deliberative democracy—a system in which citizens deliberate on policies before they are implemented—could supplement and strengthen Nepal’s electoral system.
Deliberative forums would provide new avenues for citizen engagement, enabling broader public input in tackling the country’s most urgent challenges. There is much more to be said on this topic. But even if the top leadership retires in the near or medium future, creating genuine space for citizen involvement may be the most effective way to ensure that Nepal’s republican democracy not only survives—but thrives.
Views expressed are personal.
