decades

Jeremy Spake became a firm favourite on the BBC series Airport, which first aired in 1996, and has since gone on to enjoy a successful media and aviation career before alleging workplace issues

Jeremy Spake, who was first catapulted into the limelight an astonishing 30 years ago on the BBC series Airport, is now almost unrecognisable. The programme, similar to ITV’s own successful Airline, gave viewers a behind-the-scenes look at the daily workings of Heathrow Airport and the aircraft departing from there. Now 56, Jeremy was featured on the show in 1996 during his stint as a ground services manager for Russian airline Aeroflot.

He swiftly became a viewer favourite during his time on the show, which subsequently paved the way for additional television opportunities. He went on to host Toughest Jobs in Britain, a documentary series that followed workers in some of the UK’s most challenging and physically demanding roles, as well as the medical programme City Hospital.

He also authored two books, titled Jeremy’s Airport and The Toughest Job in Britain. Jeremy’s Airport drew from his experiences working at Heathrow, guiding readers through a typical week on the job, while The Toughest Job in Britain saw him reflect on some of the incredibly tough jobs he tackled while presenting the show.

READ MORE: Emmerdale Gennie Walker star looks so different 14 years after exitREAD MORE: Noughties child star unrecognisable 14 years after disappearing from spotlight

While pursuing his media career, Jeremy was also steadily ascending the corporate ranks in his day job. Proficient in Russian, Jeremy eventually climbed to the position of services manager for Aeroflot before being promoted to Deputy Director of Isle of Man Airport.

Nevertheless, Jeremy chose to resign from his position at the Isle of Man airport, describing ‘bullying, harassment and mobbing on an almost industrial scale’ via his LinkedIn profile. Reports emerged in 2023 that he was pursuing legal action against the Isle of Man government for personal injuries, alleging damage to his mental wellbeing.

He subsequently fronted a six-episode documentary series aired on the BBC, The Airport: Back In The Skies. The fresh series witnessed Jeremy returning to his roots, reuniting with former colleagues, and examining closely how the sector was recovering following the coronavirus crisis.

Production for The Airport: Back In The Skies kicked off in October 2021, after approximately eighteen months of lockdown measures, travel restrictions, and vaccine passport requirements, while the airport was working to rebuild operations and restore full capacity.

Thankfully, Jeremy has never been one to stand on the sidelines and pitched in by helping to prepare a Boeing 737 for departure and lending a hand to holidaymakers stranded during the turmoil.

The television personality has also released his own audio book, Jeremy’s Airport Audio Book, which recounts the Airport narrative with extra commentary and fresh anecdotes that didn’t feature in the original BBC television programme. Adding another dimension to Jeremy’s repertoire, he now presents daily aviation updates on Instagram, for Air News Daily.

However, Jeremy now has a dramatically different look. His brown hair has disappeared as the star is now completely bald and he has swapped his smart goatee for a clean-shaven look. The website for the channel says: “Jeremy is a seasoned broadcaster and aviation professional with 40 years experience of working with some of the largest airlines and airports around the world and brings his unique insight to every show.”

READ MORE: Women swap Easter eggs for ‘better’ beauty box with items cheaper than Lindt bunny

Health and environment advocacy groups in the United States are suing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw a key 2009 climate change ruling known as the “endangerment finding”.

That finding had established that greenhouse gases are a risk to public health and environmental safety, given that they are the primary drivers of climate change. It formed the legal basis for many regulatory policies aimed at curbing climate change.

When US President Donald Trump, who has called climate change a “hoax” and a “con job”, rescinded the declaration in February this year, the EPA supported the move, deeming it the “single largest deregulatory action in US history”.

The lawsuit, filed on Wednesday this week, alleges that the Trump administration’s decision will risk the health and welfare of US citizens.

“Repealing the Endangerment Finding endangers all of us. People everywhere will face more pollution, higher costs, and thousands of avoidable deaths,” Peter Zalzal, the associate vice president of clean air strategies at the Environmental Defense Fund, one of the plaintiffs, said in a statement.

Trump’s revocation of the endangerment finding is the latest in a series of steps he has taken to prioritise deregulation, boost fossil fuel production and reverse climate regulations.

But Trump is not the first US president to enact policy damaging to the environment. Here’s how decades of US policy have harmed the environment before he arrived in the White House

What is the ‘endangerment finding’?

The endangerment finding was established under the presidency of Democrat Barack Obama. It states that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare.

That ruling allowed the EPA under President Obama to move forward on policy aimed at limit the release of greenhouse gases in the US, Michael Kraft, professor emeritus of political science and public and environmental affairs at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, told Al Jazeera.

Under the endangerment finding, power plants were required to meet federal limits on carbon emissions or risk being shut down. This forced oil and gas companies to invest more to detect and fix methane leaks, curb flaring, and improve tailpipe and fuel‑economy standards to enable automobile companies to manufacture more efficient, lower‑emitting vehicles.

What does rescinding it mean?

“By allowing for increased pollution, these recent changes [by the Trump administration] will harm practically every single person on the planet,” Washington, DC-based policy researcher Brett Heinz told Al Jazeera.

“People living near fossil fuel facilities will be some of the most immediately affected, as they will be exposed to the new air and water pollution unleashed by deregulatory policies,” Heinz added.

Without the endangerment finding in place, the EPA has lost a key legal basis on which to limit greenhouse gas emissions, making it easier for coal plants, oil refineries and petrochemical complexes to run older, dirtier equipment for longer, expand without installing modern pollution controls, and emit more soot, smog‑forming gases and toxic chemicals into nearby communities.

Heinz explained that higher greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels in power plants, cars and industry as well as continued deforestation will also amplify the dangers posed by natural disasters. This is because increased warming exacerbates heatwaves, storms, floods and droughts, and raises sea levels – all of which turn existing natural hazards into more frequent and more destructive disasters.

“The only people who will benefit from these decisions are a small handful of wealthy fossil fuel executives and shareholders, who will see healthy profits while the world grows sick. These fossil fuel elites, many of whom contributed money to Trump’s presidential campaign, have now gotten a return on this investment,” Heinz said.

Experts say that Trump’s decision to entirely do away with environmental policy is unlike any president before him.

“The White House’s tidal wave of new pro-pollution policies is completely unprecedented. While past administrations have modified environmental rules, the second Trump administration is essentially trying to eliminate them entirely. So far, this has been the most radically anti-environmental presidency in American history,” Heinz said.

How have previous US presidents endangered the environment?

Trump is by no means the first US president to enact policy which is damaging to the environment, however.

Under Republican Theodore Roosevelt, who was president from 1901 to 1909, Congress passed the Reclamation (Newlands) Act of 1902, which treated land and rivers primarily as raw material for large infrastructure projects rather than as ecosystems in need of protection.

This was furthered by Democrat Harry Truman, who was president from 1945 to 1953 and pushed for rapid post‑war industrial and suburban expansion by commissioning the construction of interstate highways and promoting car‑centric development.

Under Republican Dwight Eisenhower, who was president from 1953 to 1961, the interstate highway system burgeoned, and the private car became a developmental priority in the US.

While Republican Richard Nixon, who was president from 1969 to 1974, signed key environmental laws, he also backed massive fossil‑fuel expansion. Under Nixon, the highly toxic herbicide, known as Agent Orange, was used by the US military during the Vietnam War.

Republican Ronald Reagan, who was president from 1981 to 1989, appointed people to the EPA and the Department of Interior who pushed for expanded oil, gas, coal and timber extraction on public lands.

To facilitate this, they favoured deregulation and industry interests, and rolled back existing environmental policy, slashing budgets for EPA enforcement of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, easing rules on toxic emissions and pesticides, and opening up more federal land – including wilderness and wildlife habitat – to oil, gas, mining and logging activities.

Republican George W Bush, who was president from 2001 to 2009, refused to ratify the 1997 UN-backed emissions reductions Kyoto Protocol and actively undermined global climate negotiations by formally withdrawing US support for Kyoto in 2001, appointing senior officials who questioned climate science, and pushing voluntary, industry-friendly approaches instead of binding emissions cuts.

While Obama, who was president from 2009 to 2017, introduced several landmark climate regulations, he also oversaw the fracking boom, making the US the world’s largest oil and gas producer, and locking in long-term fossil infrastructure.

Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, involves blasting water, sand and chemicals into shale rock to release oil and gas, a process believed to cause methane leaks, groundwater contamination, heavy water use and increased local air pollution.

Democrat Joe Biden, who was president from 2021 to 2024, approved large fossil projects such as the Willow project in Alaska. This involved oil development on federal land in the National Petroleum Reserve, projected to pump hundreds of millions of barrels of crude over several decades.

Figures released by the the US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) suggested that the project would release 239 million to 280 million tonnes of greenhouse gases over its lifetime. The project, approved in 2023 and ongoing, was projected to continue for 30 years.

Biden also backed LNG export growth by approving new and expanded export terminals and long‑term export licences, allowing companies to lock into multidecade contracts to ship US gas to Europe and Asia.

Is this a partisan issue?

No.

“The failure of US policymakers to aggressively tackle global warming is not so much a Democrat versus Republican matter,” Steinberg said.

“It’s neoliberalism, a form of corporate freedom, that is the heart of the problem. A bipartisan consensus on the need for economic growth has led to a general trend toward weakening environmental regulations,” he added.

The US once led the world in conservation by creating an extensive national park system in the 19th century, Ted Steinberg, a history professor at the US-based Case Western Reserve University, told Al Jazeera.

“That was then. US corporate interests, especially the fossil fuel industry, combined with the one-party political system, in which both Republicans and Democrats indenture themselves to the business class, have caused the United States to drag its feet on global warming,” Steinberg said.

What is the history of Washington’s impact on the environment?

The US has historically been the largest contributor to global warming, experts say.

“As in most countries, US environmental policy has been a response to the problems caused by industrialisation and urbanisation, starting in the mid-19th century and proceeding from there, happening at the local, state and national levels,” Chad Montrie, a history professor at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, told Al Jazeera.

“Much of that policy has been limited and inadequate, especially when corporations were able to exert their influence, but in some cases, it has been ahead of what other nations were doing,” Montrie, who specialises in environmental history, added.

There was a time when environmental policy was bipartisan. The EPA was, in fact, created by Republican President Richard Nixon in 1970.

“It wasn’t until the rise of pro-business politics in the 1980s that Republicans like President Reagan took a hard turn against environmental protections,” Heinz said.

“The Democratic Party continues to believe in environmental protection and climate-friendly policies to some degree, while the Republican Party has become one of the few political parties worldwide that completely denies the scientific facts around climate change.”

How does this affect the rest of the world?

“US policy often sets the standards for policy in other parts of the world, both because of its cultural influence and because of the control that the US has over global bodies like the International Monetary Fund,” Heinz said.

“Right now, the US is actively pushing dirty fossil fuels on the rest of the world and even threatening some of its allies for trying to negotiate new environmental agreements.”

Heinz explained that this pressure, coupled with soaring energy prices, seems to have convinced Europe to retreat from some of their climate goals. Household electricity prices jumped by about 20 percent across the European Union between 2021 and 2022, according to Eurostat data.

Heinz said that if the latest United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP negotiations are any indication, global climate ambition appears to be on the decline right now.

The latest conference concluded in November 2025 in Brazil with a draft proposal which did not include a roadmap for transitioning away from fossil fuels, nor did it mention the term “fossil fuels” at all. This drew rebuke from several countries attending the conference.

“So long as Donald Trump remains in office, the hope of future generations relies upon the nations of the world coming together and acting responsibly to preserve a healthy environment at a time when the United States has gone truly mad.”

Brazzaville, Republic of Congo – On main roads and public squares across the Congolese capital, posters are up featuring the seven main candidates vying for president.

But at the Moukondo Market in Brazzaville’s fourth district – between lively discussions, people jostling for space and saleswomen trying to attract customers – many voters are less than enthusiastic about this weekend’s election.

Fortune, a 27-year-old unemployed university graduate who did not want to give his last name, said he does not expect much to come from the polls.

“When you see how money is spent during the campaign, you wonder if those in power really care about the living conditions of the population,” he said.

While Congo is the third largest oil producer in sub-Saharan Africa, about half the country’s population of about six million people live below the poverty line.

A few metres away, Gilbert, 44, shared similar sentiments. The civil servant explained that his salary is not enough to cover all his household expenses.

“I do odd jobs to supplement my income. At my age, believing that these elections will change our daily lives would be almost suicidal,” he said.

“I’ve known practically the same leader all my life,” Gilbert added. “Some call it stability. Others say that nothing changes.”

It’s a sentiment shared by many in the country: That after 40 years under a single leader, political continuity has become the norm.

President Denis Sassou Nguesso, 82, who is once again standing in the election, first came to power in Congo in 1979. After a period of political transition in the early 1990s, he returned to the presidency in 1997 after a civil war and has ruled the country without interruption ever since.

Two major constitutional revisions have marked his political trajectory. The 2002 constitution and the one adopted in 2015 notably changed certain eligibility requirements, allowing the head of state to continue to run for office.

For Nguesso’s supporters, this political longevity is primarily attributed to the stability the country has managed to maintain in a region often marked by conflict.

Congo’s neighbours include the conflict-racked Central African Republic; Gabon, which witnessed a coup in 2023; and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where the government is facing armed groups, most notably M23.

In official discourse, peace and institutional continuity are regularly presented as the main achievements of the Nguesso government.

However, several foreign observers painted a more nuanced picture of the political situation. The pro-democracy organisation Freedom House classified Congo as a “not free” country while the Ibrahim Index of African Governance highlighted limited progress in democratic participation and political accountability.

‘Asymmetrical political competition’

In the last presidential election in 2021, the official results gave Nguesso more than 88 percent of the votes cast with a reported voter turnout of 67 percent.

Nguesso is widely expected to win again when the country goes to the polls on Sunday.

Some analysts said the president’s political longevity can be partly explained by the country’s political structure.

Charles Abel Kombo, a Congolese economist and public policy observer, described the political system as a hybrid model.

“The Congolese political system combines formally pluralistic institutions – elections, political parties, parliament – with a high degree of centralisation of executive power,” he explained. “Nguesso’s political longevity can be explained in part by the structure of the institutional apparatus and the predominant role of the executive branch in the management of the state.”

According to him, the continuity of power is also linked to perceptions of stability in a country marked by the conflicts of the 1990s.

“In this historical context, this continuity can be seen as a factor of stability. But it is also accompanied by asymmetrical political competition.” In other words, political change remains theoretically possible but politically difficult.

For the economist, however, the issue goes beyond political change alone.

“The central challenge remains the ability of political actors to propose a credible plan for economic transformation. Countries dependent on natural resources need a strategic state capable of diversifying the economy and guiding productive transformation.”

Other observers took a more critical view of this political longevity.

For economic and political analyst Alphonse Ndongo, the stability often touted by the authorities must be examined with caution.

“There is indeed a stabilising regime because it has succeeded in maintaining peace. This is what is being sold today as the main recipe for success: There is no war, so the country is at peace. But this peace also allows those in power to remain there. We are in a kind of democratic illusion where elections often resemble a deal,” he said.

According to him, the current political architecture makes a change in leadership unlikely in the short term.

“It is difficult for the institutions responsible for managing elections to produce a result that differs from what everyone already expects. Everything is structured, from voter registration to the organisation of the ballot. Under these conditions, a surprising result seems unlikely,” he said.

‘Political alternatives exist’

As the debate continues in Congolese society over whether the country’s political continuity is a mark of stability or a system that is hard to change, the opposition appears fragmented and weakened.

Some established parties are boycotting the vote while some prominent potential ⁠candidates are in prison or exile.

In June, the party of opposition leader Clement Mierassa was removed from the official list of recognised political parties.

For him, the conditions for a truly democratic election are not in place.

“We have always called for essential reforms: a truly independent national electoral commission, reliable voter rolls and a law regulating campaign spending,” he said. “Without these guarantees, it is difficult to talk about free and transparent elections.”

Other political actors, however, have chosen to run in the election.

Christ Antoine Wallembaud, spokesperson for candidate Destin Melaine Gavet, said participation remains a way of defending the political space.

“The electoral system has flaws, but that does not mean that those who participate in it condone fraud. Participating also serves as a reminder of the need for reform and shows that a political alternative exists.”

For many observers, access to the media is also a key issue during election campaigns.

“Access to public media remains a recurring problem for opposition candidates. The ruling party candidate always gets the lion’s share even though the High Council for Freedom of Communication has established a list of appearances on state media so that all candidates can present their programmes,” said a Congolese journalist who requested anonymity.

Faced with these difficulties, opposition candidates often turn to private media outlets to spread their messages.

Congolese authorities, for their part, insisted that civil liberties are fully guaranteed for all.

The prime minister and spokesperson for Nguesso, Anatole Collinet Makosso, recently said freedom of opinion and expression “is doing very well”.

“Freedom of expression is alive and well in Congo. The proof is the multitude of foreign journalists here to cover this election. No journalist has been arrested because of their work or prosecuted,” he said.

For the government, this international media presence is evidence of the transparency of the electoral process and the ability of the media to work freely in the country.

However, some press freedom organisations paint a different picture. In its World Press Freedom Index, Reporters Without Borders regularly highlights the difficulties faced by local journalists, particularly in terms of access to public information, political pressure and economic constraints.

Adapting to circumstances

In the working-class neighbourhoods of Brazzaville, reactions to Sunday’s election range from resignation to pragmatism.

In Bacongo, a young man on the street explained that he has learned to adapt to circumstances.

“When the country goes left, we go left. When it goes right, we go right. Doing the opposite can be dangerous,” he said while refusing to give his name.

Beyond the political debate, economic concerns remain central.

The Congolese economy is heavily dependent on oil, which accounts for about 70 percent of its exports and nearly 40 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP), according to the World Bank. This dependence exposes the country to fluctuations in international energy prices.

Public debt has also reached high levels in recent years, exceeding 90 percent of the GDP before being partially restructured under agreements with international creditors.

In this context, several economists said the electoral stakes go beyond the single issue of political change.

Diversifying the economy, creating jobs for a predominantly young population and improving public services are major challenges in the years ahead.

But many Congolese aren’t hopeful that Sunday’s election will make a difference to their material reality because political and economic power will likely remain in the same hands.

“We all understand the system in this country,” Fortune said. “The [economic] crisis doesn’t affect everyone, nor does poverty.”

SELMA, Ala. — Sixty-one years after state troopers attacked civil rights marchers on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, thousands gathered in the Alabama city this weekend amid new concerns about the future of the Voting Rights Act.

The March 7, 1965, violence that became known as “Bloody Sunday” shocked the nation and helped spur passage of the landmark legislation that dismantled barriers to voting for Black Americans in the Jim Crow South.

But this year’s anniversary celebrations — events ran all weekend, including a commemorative march across the bridge Sunday — come as the U.S. Supreme Court considers a case that could limit a provision of the Voting Rights Act that has helped ensure some congressional and local districts are drawn so minority voters have a chance to elect their candidate of choice.

“I’m concerned that all of the advances that we made for the last 61 years are going to be eradicated,” said Charles Mauldin, 78, one of the marchers who was beaten that day alongside civil rights icon John Lewis and others.

Justices are expected to rule soon on a Louisiana case regarding the role of race in drawing congressional districts. A ruling prohibiting or limiting that role could have sweeping consequences, potentially opening the door for Republican-controlled states to redistrict and roll back majority Black and Latino districts that tend to favor Democrats.

Democratic officeholders, civil rights leaders and others have descended on the Southern city to pay homage to the pivotal moment of the civil rights movement and to issue calls to action. Like the marchers 61 years ago, they must keep pressing forward, organizers said.

Former Alabama state Sen. Hank Sanders, who helped start the annual commemoration, said the 1965 events in Selma marked a turning point in the nation and helped push the United States closer to becoming a true democracy.

“The feeling is a profound fear that we will be taken back — a greater fear than at any time since 1965,” Sanders said.

U.S. Rep. Shomari Figures won election in 2024 to an Alabama district that was redrawn by the federal court. He said what happened in Selma and the subsequent passage of the Voting Rights Act were “monumental in shaping what America looks like and how America is represented in Congress.”

“I think coming to Selma is a refreshing reminder every single year that the progress that we got from the civil rights movement is not perpetual. It’s been under consistent attacks almost since we’ve gotten those rights,” said Figures, a Democrat.

In 1965, the Bloody Sunday marchers led by Lewis and Hosea Williams walked in pairs across the Selma bridge headed toward Montgomery. Mauldin, then 17, was part of the third pair behind Williams and Lewis.

At the apex of the bridge, they could see a sea of law enforcement officers, some on horseback, waiting for them. But they kept going. “Being fearful was not an option. And it wasn’t that we didn’t have fear, it’s that we chose courage over fear,” Mauldin recalled in a telephone interview.

“We were all hit. We were trampled. We were tear-gassed. And we were brutalized by the state of Alabama,” Mauldin said.

Kathmandu, Nepal – On the eve of Valentine’s Day last month, a former king in Nepal was on a helicopter, making his way to the capital, Kathmandu, from Jhapa, a district to the southeast where he has business interests.

Gyanendra Bir Bikram Shah landed in Kathmandu to a red carpet welcome by thousands of supporters, with chants of “Raja aau, desh bachau!” (“Come back, king, save the country!”), a slogan popular among Nepal’s royalists, ringing out.

Four days later, on the eve of Nepal’s Democracy Day, the 78-year-old former monarch released a video message with English subtitles, speaking of his “unwavering sense of duty and responsibility” towards a nation he suggested was trapped in an “unusual whirlwind of distress”.

“The country is in one of the most painful situations in its history,” he said.

“In a democracy, it is appropriate for state systems and processes to operate in accordance with constitutional principles. While periodic elections are natural processes in a democratic system, prevailing sentiments suggest that elections should proceed only after national consensus to avoid post-election conflict or unrest.”

Shah’s explicit opposition to the parliamentary election – scheduled for Thursday – was aimed at Nepalis who have a lingering nostalgia for the monarchy, which was abolished in 2008 after seven years of Shah on the throne.

Why Shah is hopeful

Since the 239-year-old monarchy was abolished in 2008, Nepal, an impoverished nation of 30 million people, has been plagued with political instability.

It has seen 14 governments and nine prime ministers since, with power rotating between the ⁠former Maoist rebels’ party, the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified ⁠Marxist-Leninist), and the Nepali Congress.

However, a Gen Z-led uprising in September last year challenged the dominance of Nepal’s established political parties and forced the formation of an interim government, which is overseeing the March 5 election.

The youth-led challenge to an ageing political class has reignited debates in Nepal about a possible return of monarchy, and whether the prospect has significant public support.

There is marginal political support, too.

The Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP), which won 14 of the 275 seats in the 2022 parliamentary election, openly advocates for the restoration of a constitutional monarchy. Its leader, Rabindra Mishra, told Al Jazeera that Shah’s call for consensus on the issue echoed his own thoughts.

“I believe we need national consensus and a systemic overhaul of the system,” Mishra said, while campaigning in his constituency in Kathmandu. “I have been saying the election should be slightly postponed to forge consensus before announcing new dates. But we are not a formidable political force. The major parties are moving ahead with the election regardless.”

A year ago, Shah had put up a similar show of support in Kathmandu, fuelling speculation about whether he was trying to test the waters to push for the restoration of the constitutional Hindu monarchy. The demonstration turned violent after Durga Prasai, the royalist businessman who had mobilised crowds for the rally, broke the police barricade with his car and entered the restricted zone, which was not designated for demonstrations. Two people were killed, more than 100 were injured, and more than 100 were arrested for clashing with police.

‘Trying to remain relevant’

Critics see calculated political signalling behind Shah’s public appearances.

Baburam Bhattarai, an ex-prime minister and former Maoist leader, said Shah’s statements were concerning.

“These kinds of public statements during crucial times are not good,” Bhattarai told Al Jazeera. “The Constituent Assembly lawfully abolished the monarchy and established a democratic republic. He should think about how to contribute responsibly as a citizen. Suggesting elections should not happen just before they take place sends the wrong message.”

Political analyst CK Lal offered a more tempered view.

“He [Shah] has seen power, and that nostalgia does not fade easily,” Lal told Al Jazeera. “Perhaps he hopes that if circumstances change, keeping the idea alive may prove useful. But at present, he appears to be trying to remain relevant. It is difficult for anyone who once held absolute authority to accept irrelevance.”

‘Unifying symbol’

The RPP’s election manifesto describes the monarchy as a “guardian institution”, necessary for a country in crisis.

“To move forward, both wheels must be strong,” said party leader Mishra, using the metaphor of a royal chariot. “We are not proposing the monarchy will run the government. Political parties will govern. The monarchy would serve as a unifying symbol above partisan politics.”

Mishra said Nepal faces internal security challenges and regional geopolitical pressures, and a ceremonial monarchy could provide stability.

But Bhattarai rejects this, saying the idea of a Hindu monarchy conflicts with Nepal’s religious, ethnic and cultural fabric, and its secular constitution.

“Monarchy is obsolete,” he said. “It will not solve our crises. These are inherent challenges that can only be addressed through democratic processes. Nepal is an inclusive, secular state. We cannot reverse that.”

Lal, however, argued that the monarchy retains a limited but symbolic resonance among some people.

“It would be presumptuous to say it is not a force,” he said. “But it is not a considerable force. It appeals mainly to religiously minded elders and cultural conservatives. The younger generation has no lived experience of monarchy. To them, it appears antiquated.”

Calls to restore Hindu state

Nepal’s monarchy under the Shah dynasty ended in 2006, when Maoist-led mass protests forced Shah, who had seized power and imposed emergency rule, to reinstate parliament. In 2008, a constituent assembly formally abolished the monarchy and declared Nepal a secular federal democratic republic.

Now, the RPP advocates for reinstating Nepal as a Hindu state. Nepal was the world’s only officially Hindu kingdom until 2008.

Mishra frames the proposal as cultural preservation rather than religious majoritarianism. “Nepal is a centre of both Hinduism and Buddhism,” he said. “We do not oppose any religion.”

However, he insisted: “To protect Nepal’s identity and maintain social cohesion, we need a Hindu king as the head of state.”

More than 80 percent of Nepal’s population is Hindu.

Bhattarai dismissed the idea as “romanticism”.

“Religion is a personal faith,” he said. “A nation state does not have a religion – people do. Enforcing one religious identity on a diverse society is anti-democratic.”

Lal pointed out that calls to restore the monarchy and a Hindu state are closely intertwined. “From a monarchist perspective, a Hindu state is a first step,” he said. “For Hindu nationalist forces, it may be an end goal. There appears to be a convergence of interests.”

Since 2008, Shah has not formally entered politics, though he maintains a visible public presence. He appears at restaurants, night clubs, and other public places on his birthday and during festivals, casually posing for photographs with people. His occasional private visits abroad, including to India, have drawn political scrutiny, though he holds no official diplomatic role.

India’s governing Bharatiya Janata Party of Prime Minister Narendra Modi also holds the ideology that India ought to be a Hindu state.

At a pro-monarchy rally in 2025, a prominent poster showed Yogi Adityanath, a Hindu nationalist politician who is the chief minister of the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, which borders Nepal. Adityanath is also the chief priest at Gorakhnath Temple, which the Shah dynasty considers sacred, and has been publicly sympathetic to the idea of Nepal as a Hindu state.

But Lal downplayed speculation about Shah being backed by India, home to the world’s largest Hindu population.

“Foreign governments support winners, not losers. Their [India’s] interests lie with whoever holds power,” he said. “Despite a close relationship between the monarchy and the [Hindu nationalist] lobby in India, which is the ruling class now, they know that the monarchy has almost no relevance in Nepal.”

Monarchists mainly draw their support for the institution from an 18th-century treatise called Dibya Upadesh (Divine Counsel). Attributed to the “Prithvipath” philosophy of Nepal’s unifier, King Prithvi Narayan Shah. The idea describes Nepal as “a yam between two boulders”, referring to its precarious position between India and China, and urges its leaders to pursue cautious diplomacy, economic self-reliance and internal unity.

The RPP’s Mishra argues that these principles remain relevant.

“What Prithvi Narayan Shah formulated more than 240 years ago is still applicable today, in foreign policy, diplomacy, economic protection and national stability,” he told Al Jazeera. “We already had our organic values in Dibya Upadesh, but we went looking elsewhere for ideological models.”

But analyst Lal dismissed the idea that an 18th-century doctrine could guide a 21st-century republic.

“It is largely nostalgia. Invoking Prithvipath does not address contemporary geopolitical and economic realities. Nepal today operates in a completely different global context,” he said.

“I don’t see much chance for the monarchy to be restored.”