KATHMANDU, March 16: Rajendra Lingden, the chairman of the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP), stated that they are protesting against the transformation of democracy into a system of exploitation under the guise of democracy. He emphasized that while democracy has only recently arrived in the country, many leaders who failed to connect with the common people have become increasingly vocal in advocating for the restoration of the monarchy. In this context, Lingden has consistently supported a democracy that incorporates the monarchy.
In an edited excerpt from an interview with Lingden about the reception of former King Gyanendra Shah from Pokhara and other political matters, conducted by Editor in Chief Guna Raj Luitel for the weekly program "Nagarik Frontline" on Nagarik News Online Edition on March 9, we present the discussion here. The full interview will be available for listening and viewing on Nagarik News.
It seems that you are all very excited after former King Gyanendra's message for Democracy Day. Are you really that excited?
We have campaigned for the establishment of a monarchical institution in Nepal as a guardian, the requirement for a directly elected executive prime minister, the abolition of the provincial level due to the country's inability to sustain it, the establishment of a Hindu nation, the assurance of good governance, the punishment of corruption, and the provision of free education and healthcare for the people. Naturally, the king's message on February 19 has strengthened and further encouraged this cause.
What kind of monarchy do you want?
We refer to it as the monarchy system, not just monarchy. This system serves as a guardian. To avoid confusion, we have discussed the need for a directly elected executive prime minister. The king would hold the position currently occupied by the president. The current president is also envisioned as a constitutional guardian and impartial institution. However, when the candidate is chosen based on party recommendations and elected by political parties, no matter how much the system is labeled impartial or a guardian, it cannot remain impartial or serve as the guardian of all. The practices of our three presidents have proven this. Therefore, we aim to establish the king as an institution above party politics, fully within the bounds of the constitution. The king would act as the protector of the constitution and the guardian of sovereignty.
Who is leading the current movement? Are you leading it yourself?
Naturally, Nepal needs the monarchy as a guardian institution. As a political party, we have consistently advocated for the restoration of the monarchy and have continuously raised this issue. However, this does not mean we are the only ones involved. Other groups and individuals are also part of this movement. During the reception of the king's return procession from Pokhara, it was not only RPP members who attended, but also individuals, groups, and smaller parties. Even those who had not previously shown support for the monarchy participated. While we lead politically, various sectors and the general public are also involved.
Medical practitioner Durga Prasai has accused you of leading the movement and acting like an opportunist. Is this true?
I won't argue much about this. I will simply say that Rajendra Lingden became the party chairman three years ago. However, the RPP did not raise this issue with any intention to be an opportunist or exploit any opportunity for personal gain. After the political change, particularly after 2005/06, speaking in favor of the king or advocating for a Hindu nation could have resulted in severe consequences, even the loss of life. We endured difficult times during that period.
We have personally survived through these hardships. We did not raise this issue with the goal of winning elections, becoming ministers, or becoming the prime minister by mentioning the king's name or advocating for a Hindu nation. We believe that the monarchy and Hindu nation can provide a strong foundation for uniting the Nepali people and ensuring the country's stability. Therefore, we must not allow this issue to die. If possible, we will establish it; if not, we cannot let it die, as it is linked to the long-term interests of the country. That is why we have raised it.
Therefore, the RPP owns this issue. No one should push it aside, but if another organization or party steps forward to lead, we will feel happy and proud.
How do you feel when people call Kamal Thapa, the chairman of Rastriya Prajatantra Party Nepal, and you "fraud"?
People express their opinions based on their perspectives. Some might be confused, thinking that the king will appoint a prime minister as he did in the past after the monarchy is restored. However, Rajendra Lingden does not seek such opportunities. Even if the monarchy is restored tomorrow, the people will choose their representatives, and political parties will nominate their candidates. One must win the people's votes to become a Member of Parliament, a minister, or a prime minister. To achieve this, the party organization must be strong, and one must earn the people's votes. We are clear on this.
Should the Nepali Congress and UML also address this issue, establish the king in place of the president, and uphold the current constitutional system as it is?
We have no objections if these provisions are included in the constitution and it continues to function. However, many aspects do not align with the constitution. The establishment of the monarchy alone will not fix everything. We must also change our electoral system, as it is a source of corruption. To end this, we need a provision for a directly elected executive prime minister.
We must abolish the provincial level. This small country cannot afford so many representatives. With more than 36,000 representatives, including ward members, the president, vice president, former president, and former vice president, we are burdened with high taxes and rely on foreign loans and grants to cover their salaries and allowances.
We cannot cover even basic expenses with our income. Economically, we must reduce the number of representatives. The National Assembly has become increasingly irrelevant, and we need to cut its members, reduce the number of members in the House of Representatives, and decrease the number of local levels to create a new state structure with fewer representatives. The current system of appointing constitutional bodies based on party quotas must end, and we should appoint individuals based on merit and capability.
We must end the system that allows the Prime Minister to become the Chancellor of universities and ensure that qualified individuals hold this position. We must establish education and healthcare as the people's rights. We need a system that punishes corruption, regardless of when it occurs. Corruption has become a culture, and we must treat it as a crime and punish it. The country is falling into a geopolitical trap, and due to an unbalanced foreign policy, we are becoming more entangled. To free the country, we must pursue a balanced or non-aligned foreign policy.
In a country like ours, where democracy has weak roots, many believe that a directly elected executive prime minister would further weaken democracy, don't they?
That's a misunderstanding. The idea is not that a directly elected executive prime minister would have unchecked power. We must establish a system where no individual serves as prime minister for more than two terms, where parliament approves long-term agreements related to the country's interests, and where the monarchy seals these agreements. We need to set limits on the prime minister's powers. Currently, we have proposed that members of parliament be elected through a fully proportional system, but we also suggest that MPs should not become ministers. This way, MPs will remain focused on legislation.
In Nepal, people always talk about political change. How long should we remain stuck in this cycle? Some believe that the RPP should not have initiated such a movement. Can't we develop and continue with the current system?
Yes, it's important to address the issues that don't align and work to resolve them. As I mentioned earlier, once things are put in place, they will function. Issues like inclusivity and proportionality are also key. The point is, as I've stated before, we must reinstate the monarchy and correct the flaws in the electoral system. Regardless of the name, change will persist until reforms are implemented and the country finds its way.
We've spent two decades transitioning from one system to another, but this system has neither gained momentum nor found a clear path. Even those who once supported it now realize their dissatisfaction and have concluded that it is flawed. Some cherish the name "republic," but view the electoral system as deeply problematic. Others argue that the provinces were unnecessary and have become a disaster. There is a problem with the intent of the current leadership, and the system itself is also broken. Knowing that this system doesn't work, continuing to push it forward will only bring more harm to the country. Instead of creating change through pressure and rebellion, we must build a new understanding and move forward with it.
We are not advocating for going backwards. No country or society moves backward. Some people claim that when we discuss the monarchy, we are seeking to return to the past. However, we are not talking about the monarchy of the past; we are talking about a reformed monarchy. We believe in creating a new and original system that combines the positive aspects of the past with the new ideas of today. We are clear that the various philosophies we adopted in the past not only failed, but none of the philosophies currently practiced worldwide are working either. Today, nationalism and the support for eternal values are gaining strength globally.
You have put forward a 40-point demand, and there is talk of a right-wing wave sweeping through. In this situation, do you believe the demands you have raised will be fulfilled?
The country cannot continue this way. It cannot afford so many representatives. We must take loans to pay their salaries and allowances, which is a clear indication of the issue. If the youth working abroad don't send money back, we won't even be able to celebrate Dashain or Tihar festivals. Whether through rebellion or another path, we will inevitably reach a point where we must end this system. It is better to reach an agreement before that moment comes.
As an MP and a former deputy prime minister, with your party in government multiple times, doesn't engaging in activities against the constitution raise ethical questions?
No, we have held differing opinions on certain fundamental issues of the constitution even while participating in it. However, this constitution allows us to disagree on most matters, except for issues related to national unity, integrity, and the sovereignty of the people, such as the republic, secularism, and federalism. We did not come to parliament by hiding or deceiving anyone. We have clearly stated our position in our manifesto and party statute.
We haven't called this constitution entirely bad. By using the rights granted by the constitution, we are cooperating with it.
You are engaging in a peaceful movement within the constitution. Will you explore any path other than that?
We participated in the election through a peaceful path. When the constitution was promulgated in 2072 BS, we faced two choices. One option was to reject the constitution, refuse to participate in the election until it was abolished, and take the path of rebellion, like the Maoists, by going into the jungle. The other option was to cooperate and work with the constitution.
When we gained the majority, or when the people peacefully took to the streets, we aimed to bring all parties together to reach an agreement and stabilize the situation. We chose to cooperate with the constitution, utilizing both the street and the parliament. Now, we find ourselves at a point where the street is becoming stronger than the parliamentary front, despite our active presence in parliament. We have reached a decisive point, and if necessary, we can leave parliament and fully take to the streets.
How are you cooperating with other parties for the restoration of the monarchy? Have you discussed this with Nepali Congress, CPN-UML, or the Prime Minister?
Let's not focus on what party leaders are saying. Discussions are happening naturally at different stages, but nothing has been formalized yet. We are now approaching this point. Whether we initiate talks or they do, I believe it will happen. We cannot lead the country into conflict. As a responsible leader, I will express my views. The country has reached this stage.
The people who participated spontaneously in the demonstration on March 9—will this sea of people remain silent now? Organized efforts have now begun. We must resolve the issues without further conflict or clashes.
People believe that this has happened because the negative aspects of democracy have received more publicity than the positive ones. Is this true?
Democracy itself is not bad, but under its guise, it has transformed into a system of exploitation. It has become a means of livelihood for only a few. Here, democracy has prevented fathers, mothers, children, husbands, and wives from living together. Sons cannot meet their fathers when they die, and they cannot even see their father's body. A new industry has emerged where families must sell their children to survive. In a democracy, the people should be sovereign and at the center, but today, the people are not sovereign. It is not enough to simply state this in words or in the constitution.
In that case, shouldn't the opposition be directed towards the leadership rather than democracy?
The leadership and democracy components are built incorrectly. This electoral system keeps corruption in place and prevents its eradication. Corruption prevents everything else from falling into the right place. The electoral system also causes government instability. As long as the government remains unstable and such parties persist, foreign interference will continue. Therefore, the problem lies not only in the leadership but also in the system that the leadership has created to ensure its own survival.
We do not aim to abolish democracy. We need to build a fully democratic system where the people are sovereign and the king serves as a guardian. Democracy and the monarchy are not opposites. In prosperous democratic countries like the United Kingdom, the monarchy exists, and the people are happy. Democracy thrives there. In countries like Denmark, Spain, Thailand, and Japan, democracy and the monarchy coexist. Nepal, too, should move forward in the same way, fostering prosperity.
Where do we stand with the cooperation with RPP-Nepal?
The talks have not progressed significantly. While discussions have taken place, they have focused on specific points. We all need to unite and concentrate on the movement to bring the country to a conclusion.
Your party also seems to have a problem. Some voices have questioned your leadership. What is the current situation?
Problems do arise within the party, but I do not claim that RPP is free from them. However, it is not the controversy others may think. We have differences in opinions on how to proceed or what actions to take, but there is no issue of the party being unable to function or rejecting leadership. No one appointed me; the general convention elected me as the leader. RPP faces no issues that could block our progress or disrupt our decision-making process. Differences of opinion on various issues are natural in a vibrant party. But on core issues, we are united, and RPP stands as one. There is no possibility of division, and no one intends or has the authority to create one. We will hold a general convention in a year.
Are you confident that the movement will succeed?
The movement will reach a conclusion. We will not lose or waver without reaching it. We have already moved forward, determined to reach the goal.