On April 3rd, Nepal has seen an increase in demonstrations backing the Shah dynasty since the removal of ex-King Gyanendra Shah during the 2006 People’s Movement. The most recent protest took place on March 28th, resulting in two fatalities and significant damage amounting to millions to properties.
After Shah issued a public call for support on this year’s Democracy Day—the same day he abolished through a coup d’état on February 1, 2005—the royalist supporters turned aggressive. These pro-monarchy advocates have since challenged the present political framework across various platforms including the streets, parliament, media, and more. This has also led to an influx of misinformation along with deceptive economic assurances woven into their rhetoric backing the king.
Pro-monarchist politicians, fully cognizant of the truth, are disseminating misinformation through various media platforms to advance their own interests. One frequently echoed phrase within these royalist groups is “Raja Aau Desh Bachau” (‘King, step up and protect the nation’), which encapsulates their belief that reinstating the monarchy will rescue the country. However, rather than addressing the core issues with the democratic system itself, they appear to be distracting the gullible populace—those feeling let down and exasperated by ineffective governance from current political figures—and steering them away from placing trust in democracy.
Disinformation on economy
The perspective of royalist supporters appears to portray the monarchy as all-powerful and the sole solution to the nation’s socioeconomic and political challenges. They frequently claim that the economy and society have suffered significantly during the last twenty years following the abolition of the monarchy. Nevertheless, these difficulties should not merely be blamed on the transition from monarchy to democracy. Advocating for the reinstatement of the monarchy based on this reasoning constitutes misinformation. The root cause lies in the myopic leadership decisions made at the policymaking level over many years.
During King Gyanendra’s direct governance from 2005 to 2008, corruption reached unprecedented levels. As per the Corruption Perception Index (CPI) compiled by Transparency International, Nepal witnessed substantial improvement in this regard over the past twenty years, with its score rising from 25 in 2005 to 34 in 2024. Similar to current times, around 40% of the national budget relied on borrowing back then, way back in 1990. In terms of foreign direct investments, they were negligible at just 0.002% in 1972, increased slightly to 0.01% in 1990, dipped into negatives (-0.01%) by 2000, but surged to 0.18% in 2023. Furthermore, although migration trends have intensified recently, these movements of both skilled and unskilled laborers began long before under democratic systems—specifically after embracing an open-market economic model post-1990. Hence, reinstating monarchic rule might not necessarily halt this ongoing phenomenon.
Likewise, supporters of the monarchy frequently claim that the present presidential system imposes an unsustainable financial burden on the nation. Consequently, they assert that maintaining a monarchy would be more economical for Nepal’s smaller economy. Nevertheless, historical data presents a contrasting narrative. The budget records maintained at the Ministry of Finance reveal that the monarchy has consistently been quite costly. For instance, according to the fiscal year 1969 documents, approximately 5 percent of the national budget went toward supporting the royal family, whereas the current allocation for the Office of the President stands at roughly 0.01 percent.
During the Shah’s rule, the budget in nominal figures climbed to around Rs330 million in 2005. This sum represents over sixty percent of the overall budget set aside for the Office of the President in the fiscal year 2025. When factoring in the time value of money with an assumed annual interest rate of just five percent, King Shah’s expenditures as recorded through taxpayer funds equate to approximately Rs900 million in contemporary currency—a figure exceeding fourfold the Rs203 million designated for the Office of the President in 2025.
Positively speaking, statistics indicate that Nepal has achieved significant advancements during the last twenty years. The country reduced poverty levels from 30.9% in 2004 to 20% in 2022, increased literacy rates from 49% in 2001 to 77% in 2021, improved gender inequality scores from an index of 0.67 in 2001 to 0.48 in 2013, and saw overall human development metrics move up from a low score of 0.5 in 2008 to a moderate level of 0.59 in 2022.
The real problem
The irony is that, on the one hand, the leaders of monarchy movement advocate for a constitutional monarchy-a system where the king or queen has no influence whatsoever over the country’s economic, social, political, or any other policies-while on the other, they portray the king as a saviour. But how can a powerless constitutional monarchy without any real influence on the country’s policies be the solution to Nepal’s economic, social and political crises?
It cannot be disputed that the royalist portrayal of the prevalent issues within the economy—such as corruption, poor governance, and widespread public discontent—is accurate and demands significant political and economic consideration. Nevertheless, these challenges do not necessitate a monarchical system, nor should they lead to a complete overhaul of the current regime. Instead, the issue lies with the present leadership, which can be addressed through electoral processes.
Hence, using present challenges as weapons and subtly promoting unfounded promises without directly stating them but presenting them covertly in favor of the King constitutes blatant misinformation. It’s important to remember that aside from criticizing democracy, none of the previous Kings or the party leaders advocating for monarchy have suggested any concrete economic or political plans to address the nation’s difficulties. Instead, their actions are inciting the populace toward a path that might undermine the democratic gains and freedoms they have achieved.
