It has been 17 years since the first meeting of the First Constituent Assembly ended the hereditary monarchy and established the republic. It has been 11 years since the Constitution of Nepal was promulgated by the Constituent Assembly in the name of 'we are the sovereign Nepali people' and adopted the federal democratic republican system of governance.

The constitution is only a tool, the achievement is the paramount interest of the Nepali people. In this journey of the republic, the happiness and prestige of Nepalis could not be increased and if not, is it the fault of the political system or its administrators? Now it should be a matter of debate . Benjamin Franklin, one of the creators of the American Constitution, said, "The American Constitution does not guarantee happiness, it only seeks it, you must be able to catch it yourself." A republic is a system where power is exercised by popular participation of the people and not by hereditary or divine command. That's why Thomas Jefferson, another drafter of the American Constitution, warned, "The conduct and zeal of the people strongly preserves the republic, the lack of it or indifference is such a worm that eats the very heart of the constitution and the law." 

The famous writer Samuel Huntington has written, "When the memory of totalitarianism fades away, dissatisfaction with the failure of democracy begins to grow". As a result of the people's movement, armed struggle, sacrifice and sacrifice that the Nepali people have repeatedly made to end despotism, discrimination and oppression, they expected a lot from the constitution issued by the representatives they chose. But unfortunately, people's hopes were dashed. When hope is betrayed, then the silent revolution of despair burns inside like a fire of chaff . And if frustration grows among the younger generations, it will lead to chaos . During the reign of the tsars in Russia, the youth campaigned for 'nihilism'. It was autocratic individualism . Who did not believe in religion, family and law. Nihilists did not accept anything based on logic, nor did they reason scientifically, nor did they respect elders . Indeed 'nihilism' was annihilationism . It was considered more dangerous than dictatorship, which had the potential to destroy society. Therefore, all the rulers of Europe together suppressed 'Nihilism'. 

It is not possible to rule out the possibility that the dissatisfaction that is growing among the youth in Nepal will take the form of 'nihilism'. They are unemployed, not seeing a future in Nepal and are migrating abroad. The villages of Nepal are devoid of youth and the fields are becoming barren. They are not seeing any ray of hope. On the other hand, the ruling class is the same and is taking turns ruling. There is no desire and thought to raise the hope of the youth in them. 

Corruption scandals are being made public like daily. It seems that public office is being shamelessly used for personal gain . State benefits are given to relatives and loved ones. Apart from the posts recommended by the Public Service Commission in public services, appointments are made on party basis and merit system is ignored. In a democracy, the government should be accountable to the people, and it seems that his style is becoming autocratic. Public trust is also being lost towards the institutions established for the separation of powers and balance of control . Bureaucracy is infamous for the culture it has internalized - procrastination, corruption and self-worship. As a whole, the anger towards our governance and good governance characters has also started to be seen towards the political system . The incompetence and unethical behavior of public officials should have been blamed on them. What is the fault of the "republic" in this? From the point of view of the constitution and the law, a system of governance in which no one is superior is a 'republic'. But mud is being thrown on it without understanding or understanding it. 

Chinese philosopher Confucius' statement, "What is the meaning of honor without beauty, celebration without reverence and grief without sorrow" is worth pondering. A celebration without respect for the Republic will be a mere formality . By widely promoting the good aspects of this system, people should be able to respect it. Governments and state agencies must commit to the public that they guarantee the values ​​of the republic - freedom, equality, rule of law and popular participation. Those who take advantage of the republic and make it hollow like a worm, there is no point in celebrating outwardly.

The statesmanship of those who claim to be hartakarta in the republic did not seem sensible. Those who run the government do not have the ability to govern. It was futile to expect good governance from the immature . Time has moved on, they are trying to make themselves look cool with the ridiculous nonsense. This is not said with any bias, the index published by national and international organizations on governance is looked at, how is their governance . If there had been a dynamic and adventurous leadership in the critical situation created by history, Nepal would not have been a 'backbencher' in prosperity and good governance. Among the leaders who sacrificed and fought against the dictatorship, it was seen that luxury life quickly increased . This seems to make them irresponsible and unethical. Due to their wrongdoing, fishermen are stuck in murky water . In the first line are the Purpanchas who acted as confidants of the king in the panchayati system . They are using all their strength to see if the old power can be returned by insulting the republic.

Those who have experienced the autocratic system know what it was like. Was it possible to oppose the system at that time? Could they openly oppose the constitution as they do now? The stories of those who were arrested, murdered, and declared stateless on the basis of opposition to the system and those who suffer and see the pain are still alive . Was there inclusion in the Panchayati system as it is now? Was the strategy to address diversity ? Wasn't wild . Were the fundamental rights guaranteed by the current constitution? They were not, instead, they insulted Nepal's diverse castes and cultures by shouting slogans of 'one language, one disguise, one king, one country'. As Huntington said, now the Nepalese have forgotten the autocracy of that time and are making a new move. They say that the monarchy should remain as a guardian by moving the former king forward. A parent should be a parent, not a profiteer. In lieu of being guardians, have not kings violated civil liberties to fulfill their ambitions when they had the opportunity? It has not been long since King Mahendra carried out a military coup against the elected government in 2017, King Birendra started the politics of village differences, King Gyanendra abolished the elected institutions and killed democracy by becoming the head of the government. Now the statement of the former King Gyanendra "There is no other argument and system above civil freedom" can be read on social media. But isn't he the one who cut off the telephone, internet and restricted personal freedom by banning community radio and FMs as soon as he took power? People's memory is not so weak that they cannot remember things from 20 years ago.

Now there is another group, which claims to be analysts and intellectuals . They oppose the system because they do not get a place in politics or do not get any important appointment. Robert Dalle, the author of "On Democracy", called it "the dark side of democracy is the bargain between the enlightened classes". He said, "Under pluralist democracy, citizens join together with institutions formed to influence the behavior and decisions of the government, and there is an undemocratic process, that is, bargaining between political and administrative elite groups". They are more powerful than the common people. This group seems to be working to mislead people by giving wrong arguments. On the other hand, some leaders who have lost their justification in politics are seen trying to create confusion by distorting the truth. In this, there are those who got separated from the Maoists, those who got isolated from the Congress, those who took action from the UML and those who got zero votes in the elections. Those who applauded witnessing the comprehensive peace agreement and voted for the republic are now saying that there was no agreement for the republic. But they do not say what was in 3.3 of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. It is forgotten that in the comprehensive peace agreement between the Government of Nepal and the CPN-Maoist, it is mentioned that the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly will decide whether or not to maintain the monarchy by a simple majority.

is the reason for the growing chaos of 'republic'? This is just a system of governance. Institutions, methods and traditions form a system. A form of government in use is 'Republic'. Is this the best form of governance? In this regard, the arguments of philosophers, the sayings of constitutional scholars and the experience learned from use should be reached. In the initial stage of social development, the state was believed to have originated after the members of the community elected a ruler for their protection. Gradually, the adventurous conquerors began to declare themselves kings and became kings in almost all countries . They ruled on the basis of divine power or fear. Even then some countries had 'republics'. Lord Shakyamuni Buddhi has discussed the good governance of Bajji caste in his dialogue with Ajat Shatru . In Baji's state, decisions are made by the people's parliament, and the people choose the ruler. 

Leaving aside the mythological period, the discussion of the democracy of Athens and Spatra and the republic of Rome is relevant. Athenian democracy practiced direct democracy in city-states where every decision was made by the people . In Rome, Lucius Junius ended the Roman Empire and established a 'republic'. The republics of Athens, Spatra and Rome are called 'classical republics'. In the Republic of Rome, the "Consul" of the monarchy, the "Senate" of the aristocracy and the "People's Assembly" of the democracy included all three characteristics. Therefore, the Republic of Rome lasted for a long time . But after 130 BC, the dictatorship of Julius Caesar weakened and in 44 BC it was transformed into a system ruled by emperors . After the

, philosophers presented arguments on which governance system is better. Plato called philosopher kings (not hereditary), Aristotle called oligarchy, and Montesquieu called democratic republics a good system . It can be read that the framers of the Constitution of the United States had a long dispute about which system of government is better in the monarchy and the republic. Madison argued that "because of the wisdom of the American people, our principles of revolution, and our love of liberty, the people's self-government should not depart from the republic." Hamilton said that "the King of Great Britain is a permanent ruler and he is not responsible for his administration, but every ruler in a republic is responsible for his conduct". He further said, "The President of the United States should be investigated and impeached for corruption, treason and other heinous crimes, the King of Great Britain is not subject to investigation for any crime." In addition, George Washington said, "In a republic, the law is more respected than in other systems, freedom and property are more protected, and the distribution of happiness among human beings is effective."

After a long debate, Article 4 of the Constitution guaranteed a republican government in the Union. Later, during a speech in Springfield, Abraham Lincoln said, "Neither the family of eagles nor the family of lions is entitled to the chair of this president." The most beautiful aspect of the "Republic" is that no one is above the law and the ownership of the citizens is in the government.

'Republic' is considered to be the best system of government ever invented. But when the operators of such an excellent system are wrong, there is criticism towards this system . The elected dictators of the world were Marcos, Suharto, Mugawe, Pinoche etc. who brought the republic into disrepute . But because of some dictators, a good system cannot be said to be wrong . A republican constitution has a better mechanism of internal checks and balances than other systems. There is an institutional arrangement to prevent the nuisance of those in power and the 'safety valve' to resolve any challenge and conflict is found within it. In our republic, the drivers are not good enough so that the 'car of the republic' has not reached the target . The driver has to be changed to run it properly. It can no longer be carried on by the old and the powerless . The stubbornness of the 'Octogeneration' and the arrogance of the 'Boomers' cannot keep this system going . Therefore, for more than three decades, the leaders should be able to put up gratitude for the contribution to the change and nbsp. As young people have been partakers in power, they should be achieved by advancing need the public, including the promotion of people. Kings kill democracy and democratic leaders have weakened nationality by promoting nationalty, and Nbsp ;. Now the leadership and the values ​​of democracy and democracy should be protected, so nbsp;.