The Nepali society had perhaps never witnessed the kind of activism emerging now to weed out authoritarianism since the fall of King Gyanendra’s commissarial regime, although no plan for effective dem-ocracy is yet in place. Democratisation is never easy, for it requires consensus on the rules of the game and faith in its process.

Nepal’s sustainable transition would require a complex interplay of cohesive political culture, strong civil institutions, professional bureaucracy, economic society, and common principle of order — for there may be no other shared vision that might bind together a nation better. Indubitably, radical changes have taken place since the disgrace the monarchical-authoritarian rule suffered, but it is still not clear if Nepal will embark upon an unambiguous journey toward ‘good democracy’ in all dimensions: rule of law, accountability, responsiveness, freedom, and equality.

Theorists of third wave transition consider election as a defining attribute of democracy. Participation offers a means to identify and measure the magnitude of political democracy without having to deal with the problem of functioning democracy. However, it is debatable whether elections help achieve acceptable levels of governance, especially because free elections do not necessarily sustain democracy. Citizen participation based on a properly functioning balance of power must bring about citizen satisfaction in relation to their basic needs of education, health, employment, and economic well-being to attain ‘new self-respect’ and develop ‘deeper and more assertive group identity.’ This can be ach-ieved through a welfare state based on the principles of social and distributive justice.

Collapse of authoritarian regimes does not necessarily facilitate transition to democracy. It may stimulate mass mobilisation, but contentious actions have often followed; democratic openings were not consolidated peacefully, immediately, and easily. Order, organisation, efficiency, and transparency are the main ingredients of democracy to which Western political and economic model is geared. Yet, it is confounding why Western political and economic aims are viewed not only with suspicion, but have consistently been hated by three categories of totalitarians: the ‘reds’ (communists), the ‘greens” (Islamists) and the ‘browns’ (fascists/monarchists).

Nepal’s honeymoon with democracy suffered setbacks because of the monarchy in 1960 and 2005. With the halt of Maoist uprising, Nepal seems to be drifting away from violent conflict toward a new kind of politics, intending to put the institutional means of civilian rule into the hands of a full-blown constitutional polity to end the crisis that began in 1996 because cold crocodiles were bent on devouring democracy then and there, especially the monarchy which remains intact even if blunted.

There has been an erosion of the rule of law in civil and political decisions. The demise of commissarial rule has stimulated social mobilisation, and yet the parties and state are over-centralised and nurturing over-parliamentarianism, ‘particisation’, bureaucratisation, and a new privileged class. Civic organisations have not been able to affect significantly the policy-making process from outside. Mass politics remains a tool for a handful of ego-driven, short-sighted, and self-serving politicians who marvel at their short-term gains but inflict long-term damage. The scenario is disappointing when legislators enact silly laws, executives enforce wise laws but foolishly, and the courts let go culprits; there is little point in negotiating a consensus. The real problem is not so much political cynicism but a failure by those who hold the banners of democracy to recognise that democracy can take several forms, comes in various shapes and sizes, and need not always be stamped with a ‘Made in USA’ sign of authenticity.

No single set of institutions embodies democracy — even if some particular country may seem to represent its ‘best practice’. There is no question that constitutional assembly is important not only because it is a venue for influencing political decisions but also because it transforms democratic rights into actual rights. The UN is no panacea for the problems that arms control seeks to address in the absence of a clear mandate and different cultures agree on certain basic norms of behaviour, even though they may hold incompatible views regarding metaphysics and human nature.

Since Nepal’s democratisation process is prone to disturbance, politicians must act prudently to preclude worst-case reversals. They must behave in a statesmanlike manner. It would be naive to assume that a new political order could resolve the conflicts without having ideological confluences. The proposal for a ‘pro-republican front’ is impressive but the democratic method is the institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of competitive struggle for the people’s vote.

Thapa is professor of Politics, TU