Lately, there has been a debate about the pros and cons of the democratic republican system achieved after the long sacrifice and struggle of the people. Both sides are spreading confusion among the people by showing spectacles on the streets. Democracy is the best governance system in the world.

People's children go among the people and carry the people's mandate, the governance system is people-friendly. However, since the same person has been elected for four decades, people are becoming suspicious of democracy itself. If this is the way democracy works, then it is natural to have a common understanding of what was different about the monarchy and this system.

As democracy weakens, some people are trying to fish in murky waters. And, they are promising to return the King through a referendum. Some democratic leaders are also trying to get people's mandate in favor of monarchy and Hindu nation.

is one of them - Nepali Congress leader Dr. Shekhar Koirala. He recently gave an expression in an interview - 'Let's do a plebiscite.' This issue has come to the surface after one of the main leaders of the Congress said this. Disgust with democratic institutions and leadership is also simmering. No political party can deny this weakness. At a glance, people's distaste is not for democracy, but for the behavior of leaders. The people themselves cannot go against the system achieved through struggle and sacrifice.

Congress, UML and other big political parties have no need to fear the referendum. A plebiscite in favor of the system thrown out by the people will make no difference. Let those who are under the illusion that I am holding the sky by Huttiaun prove themselves. However, the voice of the people is strong in favor of a Hindu state.

Shekhar believes that the anti-democratic people who are rushing to taste failure from the people again will be defeated forever after the referendum. This topic is also being raised within the Congress. The Shekhar group has been talking about a referendum within the Congress on the issue of Hindu statehood. Dr. Shashank Koirala has also been advocating a referendum on religion.

The question will arise – is a referendum a suitable measure? Don't we have a history of losing the referendum with Panchayat in Sardar on 20th Baisakh 2037? Referendum is defined as the process of consulting or deciding on a particular issue in a country by voting. It is called 'referendum' in democracy and 'plebiscite' in autocracy.

In political history, referendums have long been used as a tool for direct political participation of the public. However, the use of this method is very sensitive. It is said that the referendum held in Nepal was also focused on the status quo.

According to Lokraj Baral, former ambassador and professor of political science, 'Tulsi Giri was not in favor of plebiscite.' In his opinion, the opposition has given a blank check without any condition, so the public opinion has turned upside down. This fear exists in Nepal. So such a risk should not be ignored.  The concept of the

referendum occupies an ambiguous place within democratic theory. On the one hand, it is directly inspired by the concept of empowering citizens, on the other hand, there are various examples in the world where it makes institutional security uncomfortable and poses a risk to political stability. Referendums in colonial South Asia have a history of often being used to conclude predetermined results.

For example, in Bangladesh in 1982 Lt. Gen. Hussain Muhammad Irsad, who took power through an unexpected coup, held a referendum on military rule in Bangladesh on March 21, 1985. In which public approval was demanded from public opinion to continue the military rule under the leadership of Lieutenant General Irsad.

Irsad fraudulently obtained 94 percent of the votes. Soon after, Bangladesh again plunged into internal instability and conflict. Six years later, another referendum was held to implement the constitutional system. It made the President the President. Arranged an executive head for the Prime Minister.

Another rare example from South Asia is Bhutan. It held a referendum on its new constitution. The monarchy itself evolved from the direct rule of the king to a constitutional monarchy with a plebiscite.

Another negative example is Pakistan. It has seen many referendums. It has done more to legitimize authoritarian rule than to reflect the will of the people. General Zia-ul-Haq's referendums in 1978 and 1984 and Pervez Musharraf's in 2002 were unpopular due to opaque elections. Electoral participation was increased and the opposition was banned.

Scotland's peaceful and orderly referendum on independence in 2014 was a great exercise. People debated about the future of their nation with a sense of responsibility. As a result, the decision came from a referendum that it would be in the best interests of the Scottish people to stay in the United Kingdom. 

After 2062/63, plebiscite in multi-lingual and ethnically empowered society in Nepal can cause multifaceted problems. It cannot be said that the integrity of the country cannot be affected by the growing foreign influence. Referendum is the most sensitive operation of the disease in the country. No referendum shall be held to reverse any wrongful decision.

Referendum should not be taken as a short-cut measure. Its unbroken need must be proved. Is it possible to create an impartial commission in highly politicized government, private and non-governmental organizations like South Asia? The need for it should be confirmed in people's homes. For example, on the subject of the monarchy, the referendum should not only answer whether it is wanted or not, but also reveal a third option (such as a directly elected prime minister) and only the referendum reflects the wishes of the people.

The democratic election system is not only the selection of leadership, but also the process and the competition between which parties is very relevant. Because if there is no honesty in the process and competition in the referendum, it is like a trial without fairness. As Joseph Sumpter to Habermas has said, "Democracy is not only about the total number of votes, but also about deliberation, reasoning, and institutional mediation." If there is a complete lack of knowledge and sentiment prevails in a referendum, logic will be defeated. Democracy is incomplete with a logical defeat.

Therefore, making the issue of plebiscite a political agenda in Nepal is a danger of creating an unfavorable system. As such, any decision without considering its legal, philosophical and political implications will be fraught with accidents. Politically, referendums can be a tool of tolerance and stability, as in Scotland in 2014, or they can be despotic and destabilizing, as in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Nepal is a multi-ethnic, multilingual country.

s are multi-religious, multicultural in nature. The people's movement of 062/63 adopted principles like federalism, secularism, inclusiveness. In a country with such a sensitive social structure, issues such as religion, national identity or state structure are sensitive. Having a referendum on this can increase mistrust between different communities. There is a serious danger that tension and conflict may arise. Social harmony can be disturbed. There is also the fear of manipulation by external forces.

Geopolitical interests further cloud the process. Although the referendum is a democratic tool in principle, it is not certain that the rights of minorities are addressed in democracy. Therefore, critics have also explained that there is a fear of the tyranny of the majority in the referendum. There are also many world examples of illusions being used to effect this, as Tulsi Giri calls it a 'blank cheque'. Therefore, it is important for the people to have thematic knowledge in the referendum. 

Referendum is a peaceful tool for managing disputes or conflicts between the government and the people, but its use depends on the method, circumstances and intentions. It can be constructive as well as destructive. A country going through a complex transition like Nepal should be careful. Before going to a referendum on any issue, one should understand its inevitability.

constitutional legal basis should be seen. Potential positive/negative outcomes should be assessed. A thorough analysis of the far-reaching impact on the national interest should be done. It should be objective, impartial and should not be a decision based on momentary popularity or pressure of political leadership.