KATHMANDU: On May 28, 2008, Nepal officially became a Federal Democratic Republic, ending the 240-year-old monarchy. This transformation, declared during the first meeting of the first Constituent Assembly chaired by Kul Bahadur Gurung, was the outcome of decades of political struggle, culminating in the 2006 People’s Movement and the 12-point agreement between mainstream parties and Maoists.
While this transition held the promise of political stability, inclusive governance, and national development, the last 17 years have revealed a stark gap between expectation and reality. As Nepal commemorates Republic Day, it’s vital to examine the path taken, the challenges faced, and the need for reform.
What led to the abolition of the monarchy and the declaration of a republic in Nepal?
The abolition of Nepal’s monarchy on May 28, 2008, was the outcome of years of armed conflict, political upheaval, and a dramatic loss of public faith in the royal institution. It was not a sudden event, but a gradual erosion of legitimacy rooted in civil war, authoritarianism, and historic street protests that ultimately reshaped Nepal’s political system.
The monarchy’s fall began with the 2001 royal palace massacre, which shocked the nation and shattered the revered image of the royal family. King Birendra, known for his democratic tendencies, was killed along with Queen Aishwarya, Crown Prince Dipendra, and several other royals. Dipendra, accused of carrying out the killings, was declared king while in a coma and died three days later. The throne then passed to Birendra’s brother, Gyanendra, who lacked the public’s affection and was widely seen as opportunistic. Many Nepalis were skeptical of the official account of the massacre, and widespread conspiracy theories severely undermined the monarchy’s credibility.
Gyanendra’s own actions further alienated the public and political elites. Amid a brutal Maoist insurgency (1996–2006) and deepening instability, Gyanendra dismissed successive governments and, on February 1, 2005, seized absolute power, imposed emergency rule, curtailed civil liberties, and muzzled the press.
He justified these moves as necessary to defeat the Maoists, but they only served to unite opposition forces. Mainstream political parties and the Maoist rebels, previously at odds, signed a historic 12-point agreement in Delhi in 2005, pledging to work together to end autocracy and establish democracy.
This alliance culminated in the April 2006 People’s Movement (Janandolan II)—a massive, nationwide uprising that brought millions into the streets. Defying curfews, police crackdowns, and threats of violence, protesters demanded the restoration of democracy and the end of monarchical rule. The 19-day movement, driven by civil society, political parties, and the general public, compelled Gyanendra to relinquish power and reinstate the dissolved Parliament.
Following the movement, an interim government was formed in 2006, including the Maoists, with the goal of restructuring the state. The monarchy, by now widely viewed as a symbol of repression and unaccountable power, was stripped of most of its privileges. The interim legislature paved the way for the first Constituent Assembly elections, held on April 10, 2008, with a mandate to draft a new constitution. The Maoists won the largest share of seats, reflecting the electorate’s desire for radical change.
On May 28, 2008, the newly elected Constituent Assembly voted overwhelmingly to abolish the 240-year-old Shah monarchy and declare Nepal a federal democratic republic. Gyanendra accepted the decision without resistance and left the Narayanhiti Royal Palace, which was later converted into a museum.
The public largely welcomed the change. Many Nepalis saw the monarchy as outdated, feudal, and unresponsive to the needs of ordinary citizens. Years of royal misrule, combined with violent conflict and political exclusion, had convinced the public that the future lay in a more inclusive, republican system. Despite ongoing challenges—such as the incomplete demobilization of Maoist fighters and political fragmentation—the declaration of a republic marked a watershed in Nepal’s history, ending centuries of monarchical rule and beginning a new chapter aimed at democratic transformation.
Who were the key political actors involved in establishing the republic in Nepal?
The establishment of the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal was the result of coordinated efforts among revolutionary forces, mainstream political parties, civil society, and international actors—each playing distinct yet interconnected roles in dismantling the monarchy and shaping the new republican order.
At the center of this transformation was the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal (Prachanda).
The Maoists waged a decade-long armed insurgency from 1996 to 2006 with the explicit goal of abolishing the monarchy and establishing a “People’s Republic.” Their successful transition from armed rebels to a legitimate political party—through the 2006 peace process—was central to the dismantling of the Shah dynasty.
The Nepali Congress (NC), historically a proponent of constitutional monarchy, shifted its stance under mounting public pressure and evolving political realities. Girija Prasad Koirala, the party’s veteran leader and then Prime Minister, played a pivotal role in leading the peace negotiations, facilitating the Maoists’ entry into mainstream politics, and heading the interim government that oversaw the republic’s formation.
The Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist–Leninist), or CPN-UML, was another major force. Its leaders, including Madhav Kumar Nepal and Jhalanath Khanal, were influential in mobilizing parliamentary and street-level support against monarchical rule. The UML played a critical role during the 2006 People’s Movement (Janandolan II) and in building consensus for republicanism during the peace and constitution-drafting processes.
Other prominent individuals included Baburam Bhattarai, a Maoist ideologue and former Prime Minister, who strongly advocated for progressive reforms and federal restructuring, and Kul Bahadur Gurung, the senior-most member of the first Constituent Assembly, who chaired the historic session on May 28, 2008, that officially declared Nepal a republic.
Equally important were civil society activists, human rights defenders, and grassroots organizations, who galvanized public opinion during the April 2006 uprising. Their efforts were instrumental in sustaining the momentum that forced King Gyanendra to cede power.
Ironically, King Gyanendra himself played an indirect but significant role. His 2005 royal takeover, characterized by autocratic rule and suppression of civil liberties, alienated even moderate monarchy supporters and accelerated the drive toward republicanism.
The transformation was also supported by international actors, particularly India, which facilitated the crucial 12-point agreement in November 2005 between the Maoists and the Seven-Party Alliance.
This agreement laid the foundation for united resistance against royal rule and opened the door to peace negotiations and political restructuring.
Additionally, leaders from Madhesi, Janajati, and other historically marginalized communities pushed for federalism, inclusiveness, and identity-based recognition—shaping the broader republican vision.
Together, these actors—through insurgency, diplomacy, mass protest, and political negotiation—brought an end to the 240-year-old Shah monarchy and ushered in a new era of democratic republicanism in Nepal.
What role did the 12-point agreement and 2006 People’s Movement play in this transition?
The 12-point agreement, signed in November 2005 between the Seven-Party Alliance and the Maoists, was the cornerstone of Nepal’s republican transition. Brokered in New Delhi, the agreement unified the previously fragmented democratic and revolutionary forces against the monarchy. It called for:
This unity laid the groundwork for the April 2006 People’s Movement (Jana Andolan II). Spanning 19 days, millions protested nationwide, forcing King Gyanendra to relinquish absolute power and reinstate Parliament. The success of the movement led to the Comprehensive Peace Accord in November 2006, officially ending the Maoist insurgency. The agreement and movement together dismantled the monarchy’s power and created a transitional roadmap.
This momentum led to Constituent Assembly elections in 2008, where Maoists emerged as the largest party. Ultimately, the 12-point agreement transformed Nepal’s political landscape by converting an armed struggle into a democratic mandate, and the 2006 movement embodied the people’s will for systemic change. Both events are seen as twin pillars that carried Nepal into its republican era.
When was the monarchy officially abolished, and what was the immediate reaction?
Nepal officially abolished its monarchy on May 28, 2008, during the first sitting of the Constituent Assembly (CA). The declaration passed with an overwhelming 560 out of 564 votes. It marked the end of the Shah dynasty, which had ruled Nepal since 1768. The decision followed the April 2008 CA elections, in which the Maoists emerged as the largest party. Public reaction was mixed but largely peaceful.
Urban areas like Kathmandu witnessed celebrations, especially among youth, marginalized groups, and civil society who had long demanded change. Monarchists mourned silently, and King Gyanendra left the Narayanhiti Palace without resistance, which helped prevent chaos.
The palace was converted into a national museum, symbolizing the shift. International reactions were cautiously optimistic, with most democratic nations supporting the transition. However, skepticism remained regarding the political parties’ ability to deliver on republican promises.
The abolition of the monarchy was not just symbolic; it represented a radical break from centuries of centralized, hereditary rule and opened the door for inclusive federal governance. Yet the real challenge lay ahead—in constitution drafting and institution-building, which would prove far more contentious and time-consuming than the momentous declaration itself.
What were the key expectations from the republican system?
When Nepal declared itself a Federal Democratic Republic, people expected transformative changes. Chief among them were:
Unfortunately, many of these expectations remain unmet. Public services still suffer, corruption is rampant, and political instability continues. Nepalis feel betrayed by leaders who used republicanism as a stepping-stone to power, not reform. Nonetheless, the aspirations born in 2008 continue to shape public discourse. While the republic opened the door to new possibilities, its credibility now depends on whether political parties can fulfill the very promises they once made during mass uprisings and historic declarations.
What were the major challenges in drafting and promulgating Nepal’s Republican Constitution?
The drafting of Nepal’s republican constitution faced numerous political, social, and procedural challenges. After the monarchy was abolished in 2008, the first Constituent Assembly (CA) was elected with a two-year mandate to draft a new constitution. However, deep divisions among political parties—particularly over federalism, state boundaries, identity politics, and power-sharing—prevented timely progress. The first CA was dissolved in 2012 after failing to deliver a constitution, necessitating a second CA election in 2013.
Federalism became the most contentious issue. Ethnic and regional groups demanded identity-based federal states, while traditional parties feared such divisions might fuel secessionism. Disagreements also surfaced over forms of governance, electoral systems, and judicial structures. The devastating 2015 earthquake acted as a catalyst, pushing the major parties—the Nepali Congress, CPN-UML, and UCPN (Maoist)—to fast-track the constitution through a 16-point agreement.
On September 20, 2015, Nepal promulgated its new constitution, declaring itself a secular, federal democratic republic with seven provinces. Yet, dissatisfaction remained among Madhesi, Tharu, and Janajati communities, who felt excluded from the process. Protests erupted in the southern plains, and over 50 people died in violent clashes. Hence, while the constitution institutionalized the republic, it did so amid lingering discord.
What were the expectations of the people from Nepal’s republican system?
Nepalis had high expectations from the republican transformation. After years of monarchy, civil war, and political unrest, people hoped the federal democratic republic would deliver political stability, inclusive governance, economic prosperity, development, and justice. The new constitution promised socio-economic transformation, fundamental rights, inclusive representation, decentralization of power, and dignity for all communities.
People expected an end to the culture of political impunity and corruption. Youths anticipated job creation, better education, and modern infrastructure.
Marginalized groups, such as Madhesis, Dalits, women, and indigenous communities, hoped the republic would finally address their historical exclusion.
Citizens envisioned a system where leaders were accountable and power rested with the people—not with feudal elites or dynastic rulers.
Unfortunately, many of these expectations remain unmet. While the constitution has ensured representation for women and minorities in state bodies, implementation has been slow and selective. Political instability, weak service delivery, corruption, and delayed justice have dented public confidence. Development projects move at a snail’s pace, and youths continue to leave the country in droves for employment. The gap between aspiration and reality has led to growing disenchantment with the political class.
Why is there growing disenchantment with the republican set-up today?
Disenchantment with Nepal’s republican system has grown due to persistent political instability, unfulfilled promises, and deepening corruption. Though the republic was expected to be inclusive and development-oriented, the post-2008 period has witnessed frequent changes in government, power-centric politics, and coalition horse-trading. Within 17 months after the 2022 elections, several provincial governments changed hands, and the central government reshuffled coalition partners thrice.
Youth unemployment remains high, public services are inefficient, and large-scale corruption scandals—such as the fake Bhutanese refugee scam and land grabbing cases—have eroded trust in institutions. The constitution’s full implementation has been delayed, with many key laws still pending in parliament. Identity-based grievances among Madhesis, Tharus, and Janajatis remain unresolved.
This dysfunction has emboldened royalist forces, who have held large rallies demanding the restoration of the monarchy. Urban middle-class frustration, visible in the Kathmandu Valley, is rising due to deteriorating governance and economic stagnation. If the political class fails to course-correct, the gains of the 2006 movement and the republic itself may be undermined by growing nostalgia for monarchy and order.
Is there any threat to Nepal’s republic, and what are the chances of the monarchy being reinstated?
While Nepal has formally transitioned into a federal democratic republic since 2008, its republican order continues to face ideological, political, and institutional challenges. Although the restoration of the monarchy is not imminent, some undercurrents—driven by dissatisfaction with political parties, nostalgia, and organized royalist campaigns—do pose symbolic threats to the republic’s stability and permanence.
One of the most significant factors fueling monarchist sentiment is public disillusionment with mainstream political parties. Over the years, governance failures, rampant corruption, intra-party feuds, and an inability to deliver on basic services and constitutionally promised federalism have led many Nepalis to lose faith in elected representatives. This disillusionment creates space for royalist narratives that portray the monarchy—especially the late King Birendra—as a unifying and stable institution.
The Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP), a conservative political force that openly supports constitutional monarchy and Hindu statehood, has gained modest electoral ground in recent years. Though it remains a minority party in Parliament, its influence on public discourse—particularly among urban middle-class voters and sections of the traditional elite—has grown.
Ex-King Gyanendra Shah and his family have also occasionally issued public statements hinting at a comeback, often invoking religious and nationalistic rhetoric.
While they have not directly called for reinstatement, royalist rallies and symbolic processions (such as birthday celebrations and “Save the Nation” campaigns) are increasingly visible, especially during periods of political gridlock.
Despite this, the structural and constitutional reinstatement of the monarchy remains highly unlikely in the near future.
The 2015 Constitution, passed by an overwhelming majority of the Constituent Assembly, clearly defines Nepal as a secular, federal democratic republic.
Any effort to reinstate the monarchy would require a constitutional amendment—a process demanding two-thirds support in both houses of Parliament, which royalists do not possess.
Moreover, the republican sentiment remains strong among youth, ethnic minorities, Madhesi groups, and civil society actors who see the monarchy as a symbol of exclusion, feudalism, and centralization. Any attempt to reverse the republican order would likely trigger mass resistance.
However, the threat lies more in erosion of democratic norms than in royalist takeovers. If elected governments continue to fail in delivering reforms, building institutions, and upholding constitutionalism, public frustration could deepen, allowing reactionary or authoritarian forces—royalist or otherwise—to exploit the vacuum.
In essence, while there is no immediate or credible pathway for monarchy restoration, the legitimacy and durability of the republic depend on the performance of democratic institutions and leaders. Safeguarding the republic requires active political reform, transparency, and meaningful inclusion of Nepal’s diverse population.
What reforms are needed to strengthen Nepal’s republican democracy?
To strengthen Nepal’s republican set-up and restore public faith, structural, political, and behavioral reforms are urgently needed:
Reforming Nepal’s republican system means reviving its spirit to deliver justice, dignity, and prosperity—not abandoning it.
