The comments of the government and the opposition have been established during the practice of the democratic system. Absolutist monarchy or other forms of despotism had no established opposition. In the independent Panchayat system of governance, which was replaced by the first elected government and parliamentary system by King Mahendra in the 2017 coup, there was no criticism of the king and the system.

 But that system was called pure democracy by wearing fake clothes to the common people. Even if they said they could comment positively on that system, they were punished in practice.  There is some difference between

opposition and opposition. The opposition is considered legally legitimate in established democracies and the leader of the opposition is accorded the same respect as a minister in parliamentary practice. But in an autocratic system or a dictatorship, there is no such accepted opposition and questioning the system is considered illegal. Those who wanted the end of the panchayat system led by the king were called traitors or even non-national elements.

However, to end it, there were movements for reform or displacement from both inside and outside the system. This protest was considered unconstitutional. In my first book 'Oppositional Politics in Nepal', I have described both internal and external opposition. I have tried to confirm how the opposition plays a role in the independent system. 

Today's political context is different. On the one hand, as in other democratic systems, the position of the opposition is maintained. On the other hand, the old monarchists are opposed to the current republican democracy. Within this system, from the party advocating monarchy by contesting elections, some disaffected people are now agitating for the option of republic and monarchy. Among the supporters of the monarchy are the old five, some inherently anti-democratic and some disaffected.

Their agenda does not seem to include matters of public concern except bringing a king and creating a Hindu nation. These monarchists are excited by the anger directed at some political parties and the leaders of the three. Some people seem to have come in the hope that the movement of regression will increase in the frustration and disappointment with the leadership. But the road to regression will not be as smooth as they hoped.

because there is no basis for those in the government to be angry with some leaders in favor of the monarchy. Today's young generation wants to see new faces to replace old and tried leaders, not to be subjects of kings. Political problems have arisen when leaders do not understand or misunderstand this fact. For the

chair, there is an increased attachment to the top leader. They have not been able to give a good image to the public. They are engaged in spreading corruption. Governance is not agile and effective. Today, politics is becoming untrustworthy as the people are also confused and have very negative ideas. There has been a debate about whether the republic itself will fall due to the fact that many baseless rumors are being beaten up and such rumors are being promoted by social media. In other countries, the government is criticized but the stability of the system is not questioned. Keeping the conditions and arrangements the same 

In order to find a hole to fulfill their interests, they try to push the weakness of the political leadership towards instability. Many evils can be removed by peaceful agitation to create opposition and pressure on the government on matters of public concern. Such actions encourage the government to be responsive and effective.

Those who are running a campaign to return the monarchy, which has been passed by the Constituent Assembly and later approved by the general election, should be called the opposition, not the opposition. Such a campaign is not usually possible against democracy. Rallying popular support against undemocratic systems has legitimacy and appeal because democratic movements can be enhanced as an organizing principle.

Kapiya seems to be saying that he will return later saying that the current system is imposed on the basis of foreign conspiracies. However, ignoring the fact that millions of people have taken to the streets and all the anti-political forces have united, it is difficult for the people to take to the streets for counter-revolution. Former king Gyanendra Housina may be based on people's disappointment and anger, but even if the people are against the current leader's style of work, incompetence, short-sightedness, etc., they will certainly not keep up the adage of returning the monarchy and becoming a raiti.

Gyanendra's goal seems to be nothing but killing power. Even in that, he is already a failed king, when he was deposed, 500 supporters did not take to the streets in his favor. He would not be confined to a constitutional monarchy. That is why he removed all the parties and restored the dictatorship. Due to the background and environment of Nepal, there is no possibility of a constitutional monarchy.

In today's changed time and context, there is no possibility of either constitutional or active monarchy. But democracy can be strengthened through debate on what kind of republic. Some have proposed a directly elected president or prime minister, and many favor a parliamentary republic like the present. 

Looking at the exercises done in the world, there is enough proof that there is a danger of authoritarianism in the directly elected presidential system. There is ample evidence that presidents are authoritarian in some South American, Asian, African or other countries. Evidence of how even the president of the United States, which is said to be highly developed, has been influenced by the authoritarian style can be seen in the current activities and style of President Donald J. Trump.

Compared to that, British parliamentary practice is found to be of a higher standard than others. There has been evidence in recent years that party leaders have lost support within their own party and left the leadership of the government to make way for others. If the party leaders adopt such practices in Nepal, the frustrations and frustrations seen today will be reduced. 

Today's people's desire and thinking is becoming different. Since the life of the government depends on the performance capacity rather than the political theory, the evaluation of the politician is no longer based on theoretical polarization. Therefore, the old political parties also have to face the challenge of survival.

The youth of the new generation does not support the king, party or leader only, nor can political parties keep the people as their old vote banks. If the political parties are not aware of the basic needs and interests of the people and are not able to improve their efficiency and image, it is certain that their hold on the people will rapidly decline in the future. Renewal within the party, new practices of leadership selection will help to maintain their appeal and prevent politics from drifting elsewhere. 

Today, the campaign against the regime run by the royalists is on weak ground, so it cannot be said that there is widespread support for it from the common people, students, young generation, intellectuals, Dalits, tribes, Madhesi, women. It is just like Don Quixote, who dreamed that a democratic republic would easily revert to a monarchy in a single event or momentary gathering of people, waving his sword in the air.

Gyanendra returning with a new avatar to protect the existence of Nepal is funny in itself. A safe country like Nepal is rare in the world today. If there is a sense of clean and good governance, the level of internal security will increase. The threat is zero today because both of Nepal's neighbors do not want to destabilize Nepal. Taking a balanced and restrained policy to build the country, there was no headache for anyone.

Former king Gyanendra's statement that he should come to protect the existence of the nation is intriguing. Such a statement is not new. Every politician doesn't hesitate to show the threat of an invisible force from time to time to draw public attention to his side. Especially, such strategies are adopted for their own interests by raising the slogan that they are mobilized by external forces.

Such a statement is a statement made by philosophers and strategists such as Chanakya, Aristotle, Machiavelli, etc., which politicians and rulers are adopting. If there is a danger in Nepal, it is internal, which is to be diagnosed by the politicians here. It is not possible if the established system is destroyed and a new election is sought. Campaigns aimed at regression lead to political polarization and extreme anarchism (orthodox nihilism).

In addition, if politics is linked to religion, it will harm the nation more because disturbing social harmony and peace will further weaken the country. There are many aspects included in the current constitution and if it is properly implemented, some people's grievances can be removed. But the irony is that instead of moving the constitution along the path of development and making it compatible with the sentiments of the people, when the system and the constitution itself are attacked, the attention of the nation is diverted.

Nepal's development speed is so weak because of such managerial instability. If King Mahendra of 2015 had not killed the constitution, which had become omnipotent, it would not have taken 30 years. But because the steps of 2017 increased the struggle between the monarchy and the people, Nepal has reached a republican system.

There are two main sources of discontent and anger among people today. First, the corruption and corruption shown by the leaders of the political parties are predictable and accurate. Second, highly unstable psychology. The government is not yet formed, its lifespan starts to count as so and so. Looking at the development data after the establishment of the republic, no one argues objectively. People are also influenced by exaggerated statements, false and exaggerated descriptions spread by social media. The problem is getting complicated as it is also fueling mental and political instability.

Political party leaders are no less responsible for managerial instability. The patriotic slogans, unnecessary nationalism interpretation, lack of thinking and lack of performance have added to the constitutional complexity. People are more frustrated and angry with the game of chairs, status quo leadership and stagnant bureaucracy. The solution to such problems depends on the public pressure given to the political leadership. Public opinion will not work for leaders with skin as thick as a rhinoceros. There can be a peaceful movement for intense pressure.

If they don't come true, there may be a public uprising, but there's no telling who will lead it. Some people talk about the Bangladesh model. Will the leaders of the political parties be able to handle this situation? not sure But what can be said is that there is no possibility of vertical intervention or military intervention of external power in Nepal, because the situation here and geopolitical limitations make it difficult to change power in one's favor.

The people can take other paths, but it cannot be called a trap against the republic itself. As there is no other option but anarchy, the people cannot go beyond the practice of democracy. Bangladesh has also learned a similar lesson because it did not hand over power to the military. These are just aspects of the possibilities but they fluctuate because politics is dynamic. Even in that, the democratic system is always encouraged.