Nepal:Experiment with Democracy | Chapter 4 | Nepalese History & Politics

Brief Answer Questions

1. What is Panchayat system? Who introduced it and when?

The Panchayat system was a partyless political system in Nepal characterized by absolute monarchy and a network of local councils called Panchayats, intended to represent the people but functioning under royal control. It was introduced by King Mahendra in 1960.

2. Define Delhi Agreement.

The Delhi Agreement was a tripartite agreement signed in 1951 between the King of Nepal, the Nepali Congress Party, and the Ranas, ending the Rana oligarchy—a hereditary prime ministerial rule—and establishing a constitutional monarchy with a democratic government.

3. Mention the differences between people’s movement of 2047 B.S and 2062/63 B.S.

• The people’s movement of 2047 B.S. (1990 A.D.) aimed to dismantle the Panchayat system, resulting in the establishment of a multiparty democracy under a constitutional monarchy.
• The people’s movement of 2062/63 B.S. (2005/2006 A.D.), also known as the Second People’s Movement or April Movement, opposed King Gyanendra’s direct rule, leading to the restoration of parliament and the eventual abolition of the monarchy.

4. Mention the objective of People’s movement of 2047 B.S.

The objective of the people’s movement of 2047 B.S. was to end the authoritarian Panchayat system and establish a multiparty democratic system with a constitutional monarchy.

Short Answer Questions

5. Give some reasons for the end of Panchayat system in 2046 B.S.

The Panchayat system began to crumble due to the people’s movement that started in 2046 B.S. (1990 A.D.), with its formal abolition occurring in 2047 B.S. Several factors contributed to its end:

• Widespread protests: Public discontent with the authoritarian rule fueled mass demonstrations.
• Economic stagnation: Persistent economic challenges eroded support for the system.
• Corruption: Rampant corruption within the administration undermined its legitimacy.
• International pressure: Global calls for democratic reforms added external momentum to the movement.

6. Although there have been many political changes in Nepal, people’s expectations have not been met. Why do you think so? Give reasons to substantiate your answer.

Despite significant political transformations in Nepal, such as the shift from monarchy to a federal democratic republic, people’s expectations remain unfulfilled due to persistent challenges:

• Political instability: Frequent government changes and political infighting have disrupted effective governance.
• Corruption: Endemic corruption has diverted resources and eroded trust in leadership.
• Slow economic development: High unemployment, inadequate infrastructure, and poverty persist, limiting tangible progress.
• Social inequality: Issues like caste discrimination, regional disparities, and unequal access to education and healthcare remain unaddressed, leaving many citizens disillusioned with the outcomes of political change.

7. Recently people are protesting to reinstate the constitutional monarchy and Hindu Kingdom, what is your opinion on that? Write your answer by comparing the current federal democratic republic system with constitutional monarchy.

Constitutional Monarchy:

Strengths: Offered stability and a unified national identity under the king.

Weaknesses: Power was concentrated in the monarchy, often leading to authoritarianism and restricted political freedoms, as seen during the Panchayat era and King Gyanendra’s rule.

Federal Democratic Republic:

Strengths: Provides greater political freedom, representation through elected officials, and a framework for accountability.

Weaknesses: Suffers from political fragmentation, governance inefficiencies, and slow progress on economic and social issues.

Opinion: While the current system has shortcomings, reverting to a constitutional monarchy may not resolve Nepal’s challenges and could reintroduce authoritarian risks. The democratic republic, despite its flaws, offers a more inclusive and participatory framework. Addressing governance issues—such as reducing corruption and improving economic outcomes—within the current system would be a more effective path forward than returning to a monarchical past.