“When leaders call for confrontation instead of conversation, they’re not defending democracy they’re dismantling it.”

-Barack Obama

On May 29, as royalists plan a mass rally in Kathmandu demanding the return of the monarchy, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli has instructed his party cadres to take to the streets at the same time, with a clear directive: ensure UML control over the capital between 11 AM and 2 PM. His words were not merely a call for political presence they carried the weight of incitement.

Rather than playing the role of a constitutional guardian committed to safeguarding peaceful assembly and democratic rights, the Prime Minister appears to be assuming the role of a street-level agitator.

The move raises serious concerns about executive overreach, violation of constitutional freedoms, and the dangers of normalizing confrontation through state-sanctioned political militancy.

Throughout history, such appeals from the highest levels of government have rarely ended well for democracy. Whether it was Benito Mussolini unleashing Blackshirts in Italy, Adolf Hitler deploying Brownshirts to silence opposition, or more recent examples like Recep Tayyip Erdoğan encouraging AKP loyalists to “defend democracy” through force, the pattern is the same: when heads of government mobilize loyalists to suppress dissent in the streets, democracy itself begins to wither.

Prime Minister Oli’s call echoes this troubling trend. It not only undermines the fundamental rights enshrined in Nepal’s constitution—freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly, and the right to protest—but also chips away at the principle that governments must act as neutral protectors of all citizens, not partisan enforcers of street dominance.

Global parallels of authoritarian mobilization

Claiming to defend Italian nationalism, Mussolini allowed and encouraged these squads to physically confront rival factions, effectively dismantling pluralism and paving the way to dictatorship.

In the early 20th century, Benito Mussolini empowered his Blackshirts—paramilitary fascist squads—to control Italy’s public spaces and intimidate socialist organizers.

Similarly, Adolf Hitler’s Brownshirts (SA) were central to the Nazi party’s rise. Initially presented as self-defense forces, they were deployed to disrupt opposition meetings, suppress dissent, and dominate public demonstrations. This normalized political violence and collapsed the democratic institutions of the Weimar Republic.

In Venezuela, Hugo Chávez developed the Bolivarian Circles, citizen networks tasked with “defending the revolution.” Over time, these groups began confronting anti-government protesters on the streets, often violently. Under the banner of popular will, Chávez fostered a culture of physical dominance in the public sphere, further polarizing an already fragile democracy.

In all these cases, the pattern is unmistakable: street confrontation, incited or blessed by those in power, leads to democratic erosion. Prime Minister Oli’s rhetoric bears dangerous resemblance to these tactics. It is a warning sign that Nepal, too, risks sliding into a cycle where political might replaces legal right.

A republic’s founding values betrayed

Nepal’s Republic Day on May 29 marks the official abolition of the monarchy in 2008 and the nation’s transition to a federal democratic republic. It is a symbolic moment of reflection, unity, and reaffirmation of constitutional values—chief among them, the freedoms of assembly, expression, and dissent.

The Constitution of Nepal, under Article 17, clearly guarantees the right to assemble peacefully without arms and freedom of opinion and expression.

These are not conditional on the content of political belief. Whether it is a republican defending secular democracy or a royalist calling for constitutional monarchy, the right to protest peacefully remains protected.

By calling for cadres to “take control of the streets,” Prime Minister Oli has signaled that state power may align with party muscle, not the Constitution. This raises several troubling questions. Is the state now actively endorsing counter-mobilization to suppress opposition expression?

Will the government deploy police neutrally, or will law enforcement implicitly side with Oli’s supporters in the name of public order? These are not rhetorical queries; they go to the heart of what kind of republic Nepal seeks to be.

Prime Minister’s reckless gambit

This is not an isolated instance of political recklessness by Oli. Throughout his multiple terms in power, KP Sharma Oli has shown a consistent pattern of undermining democratic norms. He unconstitutionally dissolved Parliament twice in 2020 and 2021, centralized power in the Prime Minister’s Office, manipulated constitutional commissions, and dismissed dissenters as anti-national or foreign agents.

But this latest call crosses a new red line. It is one thing for a party leader to criticize opposition voices or defend ideological positions.

It is quite another for the sitting Prime Minister the chief executive of the country to urge his followers to physically dominate public spaces on a day of national unity. It sends a message that street supremacy is more important than constitutional governance.

This confrontational approach is not only dangerous; it is deeply irresponsible for someone who heads the security apparatus of the state. The Prime Minister’s foremost duty is to uphold the rule of law, protect the rights of all citizens, and ensure peace—not to provoke partisan street battles.

State responsibility vs. street rivalry

In a democratic republic, public space belongs to all citizens, not to those with greater numerical strength or party loyalty. The state’s responsibility is not to pick sides between competing ideologies but to create conditions for peaceful coexistence.

Especially on Republic Day, the police and civil administration should be ensuring safe, orderly, and nonviolent demonstrations, regardless of who is marching.

Oli’s call risks delegitimizing the neutrality of state institutions, especially the police. If cadres confront royalist protesters and violence breaks out, the police will face impossible questions: Do they suppress the monarchists exercising their constitutional rights? Do they restrain ruling party loyalists emboldened by the Prime Minister himself? In either case, institutional credibility will suffer.

What is most alarming is that such confrontation if it turns violent—could offer the Oli government a pretext to further curtail civic freedoms in the name of national security. Manufactured chaos has historically been used to justify authoritarian crackdowns. Nepal must not go down this route.

Weaponizing nationalism and majoritarianism

Oli has long framed himself as a staunch nationalist, portraying critics as agents of foreign powers or enemies of national identity. This brand of populist nationalism thrives on polarization: us versus them, patriots versus traitors. His call for cadres to seize the streets aligns with this ethos, converting ideological rivalry into physical contestation.

But nationalism cannot be allowed to mutate into majoritarianism. The republic was founded precisely to end the notion that one voice be it that of a king, a party, or a charismatic leadercan dominate all others. It is built on pluralism, peaceful dissent, and institutional balance.

By invoking “street control” as a show of strength, Oli risks equating republicanism with party loyalty, and popular legitimacy with headcount.

This turns democratic deliberation into a zero-sum game where dialogue is replaced by demonstration, and power is proven not in Parliament or the courts but on the pavement.

Slippery slope of democratic backsliding

What begins as street mobilization quickly morphs into structural authoritarianism. The world has seen this before. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkey began by organizing loyalist counter-protests to suppress Gezi Park demonstrators. Over time, dissent was criminalized, the judiciary was politicized, and the media muzzled.

In India, Narendra Modi’s government has often been accused of tacitly allowing pro-government mobs to intimidate protesters, especially during the 2020 anti-CAA protests. Such patterns normalize intimidation, delegitimize opposition, and shift the democratic center toward the authoritarian edge.

Prime Minister Oli’s trajectory is beginning to mirror these trends. By urging physical domination of public space, he is no longer positioning himself as a political competitor, but as an arbiter of who gets to speak in Nepal’s democracy.

Unjustified democratic abandonment

There is no doubt that the rise of monarchist sentiments, however fringe or unfounded, poses a challenge to Nepal’s republican ideals. But the solution cannot be to out-shout or out-muscle such views. That only amplifies their relevance and risks martyring their proponents.

Republics are not defended by street supremacy. They are preserved through principled governance, constitutional fidelity, and public trust. The correct response to monarchist nostalgia is to deliver better governance, deepen democratic participation, and reinforce republican institutions—not to crush dissent through party mobilization.

By acting as a provocateur rather than a statesman, Oli is feeding the very instability he claims to fight.

Reclaiming the spirit of the republic

Nepal stands at a critical juncture. The republic is no longer an idea in its infancy; it is a political reality tested by crisis, corruption, and confrontation. To preserve it, the rules of engagement must be reaffirmed.

The Prime Minister must immediately retract his call for street confrontation and publicly commit to protecting the rights of all demonstrators—regardless of ideology.

Security forces must be instructed to act with impartiality and professionalism. Civil society, media, and constitutional watchdogs must sound the alarm and refuse to normalize this kind of executive incitement.

If Nepal allows its Prime Minister to openly encourage confrontation, the republic will not fall in a single blow. It will erode slowly, one street clash at a time, until there is nothing left of the civic peace that defines democracy.

Republic must be defended by law, not loyalty

Prime Minister KP Oli’s May 25 remarks are not just politically provocative—they are constitutionally dangerous. His call for cadres to seize the streets on Republic Day is an affront to the rights enshrined in Nepal’s democratic charter and a betrayal of the very republic he presides over.

Leadership demands restraint, especially when tensions run high. It requires the humility to allow dissent, the patience to engage with opposition, and the wisdom to separate party interests from national duty. Oli’s failure to embody these qualities risks pushing Nepal down a path of authoritarian relapse.

In the end, republics fall not only to kings and coups but also to elected leaders who mistake confrontation for courage and control for strength. The Nepali people and its democratic institutions—must ensure this is not one of those moments.