Can Nepal Restore Monarchy?

Constitution Study #2: Reflections on Sovereignty, Monarchy, and Nepal’s Living Constitution

When I first set out to read the Constitution of Nepal in its entirety, I expected a legal document—dry, technical, full of jargon. What I encountered instead was a mirror, not just of law and governance, but of ourselves, our hopes, our betrayals, our fragilities. Somewhere along the journey, an unsettling question surfaced:

If the power of the State is vested in the Nepali people, and if they want to restore monarchy, would the Constitution still be valid? Can Nepal restore monarchy?

This question did not come in isolation. It arrived during a time of national anxiety. Pro-monarchist rallies were clashing with the government—voices rising from corners of frustration, nostalgia, and desperation. The very legitimacy of Nepal’s republicanism was being questioned on the streets.

So, I asked. And I explored.

What the Constitution Says

Article 2 of the Constitution of Nepal lays out the provision for popular sovereignty:

“The sovereignty and State power of Nepal shall be vested in the Nepali people. It shall be exercised in accordance with the provisions set forth in this Constitution.”

This clause is both empowering and limiting. It declares that sovereignty lies with the people. But it must be exercised within the Constitution. This means constitutional sovereignty overrides popular sovereignty. And here lies the contradiction:

What happens when the people’s will itself wants to go beyond the current Constitution?

Can the Monarchy Be Reinstated?

Theoretically, yes. Practically, it’s a bit complicated. And yes, not without undoing the Constitution itself.

Nepal is currently a federal democratic republican state, as defined in Article 4(1). This identity is not decorative. It is woven into the Constitution’s foundation.

Reinstating the monarchy, may be possible through:

• A two-thirds amendment in the Federal Parliament (Article 274),
• A popular movement,
• A referendum, or
• A drafting of a new Constitution.

It’s not like we say, “We want the King back,” and poof! we get the King in an instant. It is a structural, existential shift. And it would legally nullify the current Constitution’s core.

What About the Constitution of 2047 (1990)?

The Constitution of 2047 (1990) was built upon constitutional monarchy. It was not perfect. It embodied a compromise between the king and the political parties after the Jana Andolan of 2046 (1990). Interestingly, even though the executive worked under the name of the king, it explicitly stated in Article 3:

“The sovereignty of Nepal is vested in the Nepalese people and shall be exercised in accordance with this constitution.”

Reinstating that Constitution would mean people still reigning supreme. However, the actions of king could not be challenged in court. He could declare an unfit heir, and people would have to accept him. He could choose anyone to head the Raj Parishad in his absence, undermining democratic representation. These provisions are both legally contradictory and philosophically paradoxical, which eventually resulted in extra-constitutional actions by the king, the political parties, and the reinstated parliament.

And yes, while the actions of the reinstated parliament bypassed formal legal channels, they were largely legitimized by the momentum of Jana Andolan II of (2063) 2006, a movement that many believed restored, rather than subverted, the people’s sovereignty.

But is it possible for Nepal to reinstate monarchy?

Maybe. The answer is in world history.

Cambodia’s Restoration: A Comparative LensIn exploring Nepal’s possible paths, I looked outward — to Cambodia.

• In 1970, King Sihanouk was overthrown.
• After a tragic chapter of genocide and communist rule, Cambodia returned to monarchy in 1993, not by reviving the old constitution, but by drafting a new one.
• The new monarchy was symbolic, ceremonial, and constitutional. The real power remained with elected representatives.

Cambodia’s case shows us: Monarchy can return, but it must adapt to the times.

A Personal Reckoning

As I studied these questions of sovereignty, legitimacy, and revolution, the streets outside were turbulent. The clashes between monarchists and police, the chants for the crown, the counter-chants for the republic… they weren’t just noise.

They were echoes of something deeper: a broken trust.

The Constitution promises much: dignity, equality, justice. But the political system built atop it has failed too many, too often.
During those weeks, I saw not just a legal text, but a document under siege, not by mobs, but by neglect, by elite capture, by empty promises.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Theoretically, Nepal could become a monarchy again. But it would not be the same monarchy. Nor should it be.
Just as this republic must evolve or die, any future system must serve the people, not rule them.

As I often reminded myself:
A Constitution is not a crown. It is a contract.
It lives only if we believe in it, and act on it.

Final Thoughts

This journey left me emotionally raw, politically awakened, and intellectually humbled.

I don’t support monarchy. But I understand why some people now do. It is not because they all love the idea of kings. Maybe some do.
But it is mostly because they feel abandoned by the republic.

The Constitution of Nepal is still our greatest hope, but only if we make it real in the lives of the people it was meant to serve. Otherwise, it too will be remembered as yet another broken promise in the footnotes of history.