The end of the King’s direct rule marked a decisive phase in Nepal’s transition toward democracy and opened a new window of opportunity to restore legitimate authority. But only time will tell if we will have a state in which the will of the people would be respected. The year-long democratic rule has made it obvious that the country is still not on the right track.

While factors like constitutional limitation, malfunctioning economy, fragmentation, polarisation and foreign interference throttle the growth of democracy, lack of a democratic mindset, absence of sound party system, rise of race politics and self-fulfilling prophecies, negative image of political leadership, and widely practiced patronage put a major impediment to compromise, the prerequisite of any democracy.

If pluralisation of post-authoritarian society can resolve the problems in society, the assumption would follow that until the development of a political regime that can garner trust and mass support, both the rulers and the rules of the game are likely to come under attack and the regime is bound to collapse.

One way to size up a regime and its political character is to look at its political rulebook or constitution and forms of political participation. In a parliamentary democracy, the executive, consisting of prime minister and cabinet, is dependent on the parliament for its survival. But this is clearly not the case here. Although there are some democratic features, it is impossible to label the current regime either as libertarian or authoritarian as it continues to be governed in an oligarchic fashion or through a ‘combination of oligarchy and democracy’ or rise of ‘democracy doubles’, that seem democratic, but with usurping of political power by a clique of politicians.

Without a political system characterised by cultural integration and social compromise, equitable distribution of political resources, free and fair election, guarantee of human rights, separation of powers and conflict as part of order, it is impossible to transform politics into a stable game where rational actors interact.

The transformation seems further complicated by the fact that the political parties, now confined only to the Valley, are high on rhetoric. They have forgotten the outlying areas.

The present regime consists of forward-looking elements for evolution of democracy, but it has failed to effectively respond to different problems. And one cannot imagine who and what system will succeed the self-assumed realist PM GP Koirala and his kleptocracy. His argument that Nepal is now 80% republic is wrong in terms of its viability and its value for conflict prevention and is likely to lead toward unstable coalitions and proliferation of extremist parties.

Democratisation cannot be sustained without a legitimate political order. Modern democracies depend a lot on the types and level of fairness of political institutions and on how leaders develop and accept new ideas. A regime need not have popular approval; what is essential is that most of the population consider that the system is right for them.

There is one issue that deserves particular emphasis. Even if CA is necessary for the institution of democracy, and uprooting of old mores, values and structures, legitimacy of constitution, according to constitutional law, is derived primarily from the method of its enactment. It can only be credited with legitimacy if the CA is formed according to democratic principles and/or constitutional draft is ratified through a referendum.

A political system depends on whether the social and political elites follow constitutional rules and accept democratic system. The challenge for them is to identify the factors that bring about conflicts and develop effective response. Yet until all the parties agree to the basic ‘rules of the game’, tensions are bound to rise between ruling elites and their opponents who would like to curb the centre’s power. Nepal still is in the stage of fictionalisation, where manipulated groups jump into action at the call of their politico lords.

These groups are only concerned with their vested interests. They are not concerned about setting up institutions for political and economic stability, or acquiring legitimacy through due process, or being accountable to the people. Class-based movements with Marxist agenda must give way to cleavages. In the case of Nepal, there still are several motivational or political forces at work, consisting of ‘useful idiots’ — in Lenin’s telling phrase — that can spread extremist ideas to turn it into a totalitarian state.

They do offer explanations for their actions, but their underlying purpose is to exploit the fruits of democracy, even if it is detrimental to common folks. This is the nub of the problem. People are more concerned about their well-being after a long, arduous and dreadful period of strife and violence. It is time to prove that the people’s movement was not in vain.

Thapa is professor of Politics, TU