Ever since Nepal has embraced federalism, a debate has aroused; which one is better “monarchy or federalism” . Well, the answer is not that simple. No one can justify one over another. Arguments can be made both in favor or against both. There is nothing called absolute. Many countries with monarchy have achieved great prosperity and the countries without monarchy too have.

Nepal transitioned from monarchy to federalism after the popular people’s’ revolution in 2006. People spontaneously went to protest against the then monarch King Gyanendra Shah. Whenever the people have come spontaneously to the streets of Nepal, they have brought changes in the system and the government.

The course of Nepalese politics had one pace till the Rana rule. People fought against the tyranny and cruelty of rana and uprooted the rana regime in Nepal. The 104-year-old rana rule finally came to an end on Falun 7, 2007. Nepali people had great expectations that now Nepal will flourish as the considered hindrance of development of Nepal ‘The Ranas’ were gone. However, it was not the case. Nepal saw much more political turmoil after the events of the restoration of democracy.

Before, it was the Rana vs. King and people. Now that ranas were uprooted tussle began among the king and the leaders of political parties. This led to another instability in the country. Leaders were convinced that the root of instability was king. People yet for another time came in the streets and dethroned the king.

Now that king has been dethroned, yet there is instability as always. Nepalese have long dreamt of political stability in the country. Nepalese aren’t ready for another revolution or insurgency. After the abdication of the throne by King Gyanendra, the country was declared a federal republic and with that country was declared secular. This has given birth to another debate in the country. This was comparatively lowkey over the years. But it has started to resurface in the media more often.

Recently, Mahesh Basnet; a leader and member of the standing committee of the Communist Party (UML) has proposed to review the federalism and secularism in the Standing committee of the party. He is considered to be one of the close persons to K.P. Oli. This is seen as meaningful coming from him. Many people have speculated that it is the opinion coming from K.P. Oli himself.

However, the question remains the same what exactly is the problem here. Where the problem lies is never discussed. People are always distracted from the main issue and are always subjected to debate that is irrelevant. The real problem lies with the leaders governing the state and their blind followers. Other is the polarized society, which is always divided once a leader of a party utters a word or a sentence. People are ready to defend or criticize the opinion. This has led to real political instability in the country.