KATHMANDU, MARCH 1

Many people oppose the idea of a king, believing it would be an exercise in oppression and a restriction of rights. People should decide if they want a king

After the statement released by former King Gyanendra Shah on Democracy Day, KP Sharma Oli said, 'Gyandendra Ji is in a dilemma. In the last 240 years, kings and monarchy did nothing for the nation. Did they develop in comparison to the Scandinavian nations or other nations...'

Oli is right, Nepal was not like a Scandinavian nation back then, nor will it ever be. The development made by the monarchy when King Mahendra was in power can never be compared to the development these political parties have made in the last 30 years.

The nation's political parties, including the Maoist, CPN-UML and others, have done excellent work by looting the nation's treasury and robbing banks and financial institutions, beseeching in front of foreign powers and diplomats.

Thousands of widespread scandals, which the biased Nepali media will never write about since most of them are partly funded by these parties.

Nepal has been ruled by a hereditary monarchy for centuries, but with tremendous changes and upheavals in recent decades, the question of whether or not to keep the king is a source of debate. On the one hand, some people argue that a king provides much-needed stability, continuity and a sense of national identity to Nepal. They claim monarchy symbolises national unity and is a bridge between the country's past and present. Additionally, they say the monarchy has traditionally provided stability and continuity, allowing the government to maintain its cultural identity and traditions and unify the country despite ethnic, linguistic and religious differences.

On the other hand, many people believe that the king's power is no longer necessary and could even be damaging to the country's progress. No matter which side of the debate one falls on, the question as to whether the monarchy will benefit the country or not is complex and challenging.

Nevertheless, the decision will ultimately shape the nation's future, and all voices must be heard before reaching a conclusion.

Many people oppose the idea of a king in Nepal, believing it would be an exercise in oppression and a restriction of rights. However, the people of Nepal should decide if they wish to have a king and what form of government they desire.

The monarchy is a relic of a past era. Its continued existence is seen as a sign of inequality and subjugation of the less fortunate. But ultimately, the people should be the ones to decide what type of government will best represent their interests.

The debate over the necessity of a king in Nepal has been intensifying in recent years. The abolishment of the monarchy in 2008 and establishment of a secular and democratic republic resulted from a popular movement. Despite this, the presence of a royal figure has been integral to the government and politics of countries like Denmark, Sweden and the United Kingdom for centuries.

While the role of a king can signify power and prestige, it can also be beneficial in specific contexts. For example, a king's special forces may influence the nation's direction and shape the country's future.

As the discussion surrounding the need for a king in Nepal continues, it is crucial to consider the implications of such an appointment and its potential benefits to the country.

Recently I visited Denmark, a Nordic country, where I saw that the Queen was an important figure in the government. She was seen as an important figure in Danish society, and the Danish monarchy is one of the oldest in the world.

Queen Margrethe II (born 1940) has been Denmark's reigning monarch since 1972.She had the power to appoint government officials, sign legislation, and even declare war. She is also seen as the head of state and a symbol of national unity.

In Sweden, the King, Carl XVI Gustaf, had a similar role. Still, the focus was more on the economic and social aspects of the country.

In addition, he can appoint government officials and sign the legislation. In the United Kingdom, King Charles III was more focussed on the symbolic aspects of the country. He was seen as the head of state and was responsible for unifying the country and leading the nation in times of peace and prosperity.

The King can appoint government officials and sign the legislation.

These examples of kingship provide an interesting comparison to Nepal, which has a long history of the monarchy. Still, the current political system is a democratic republic. Nevertheless, many pundits and experts believe it was bought by the influence of the 12-point agreement signed in New Delhi.

Is it possible for Nepal to benefit from a monarchy? After all, the country has a deep-rooted history of kingship. Moreover, a monarch could bring a sense of national unity and economic and social stability.

Nepal is facing a tumultuous political climate, and it may be time to get back the king. Not only would the king provide strong leadership, but he could also act as a symbol of unification, reminding the people of their shared values and history.

Perhaps, the monarchy could help protect the nation's forests, resources and culture, providing fast economic growth and a development environment. Subsequently, the monarchy could bring stability and a greater sense of continuity while at the same time promoting democratic principles.

Ultimately, the monarchy may be the key to Nepal's success and a way to reaffirm its place in the world. The rule of the king in Nepal can bring many advantages to the country.

Nevertheless, collaborating with the current political parties would be a challenge.

Giving citizens a system of governance open to their input allows them to express their opinion and help determine their nation's future. Furthermore, this system enables the open exchange of thoughts and encourages people to participate in political activities.

Ultimately, it is up to the Nepalis to decide on the direction of their nation, independent of any external influence or agreements.

A version of this article appears in the print on March 1, 2023, of The Himalayan Times.