The Interim Constitution needs to be amended within this Nepali calendar month to avoid a constitutional crisis triggered by the postponement of the November 22 constituent assembly (CA) election, if for nothing else. The outstanding issues that the seven parties continue to discuss, such as the timing of the declaration of the republic and the electoral system, are political ones, which have caused an impasse in the transition but are not constitutionally urgent decisions. The question is, however, that without political agreement on other issues, the constitutional amendment even to change an election date is unlikely to happen. But, a fresh date may not by itself lead to the CA polls, though certain quarters, including some friendly countries, appear to be insisting on a fresh date. At best, a new date could give the parties more time to resolve the crisis. In the first place, it was not necessary to incorporate an election date in the constitution but it was so done in order to make the election doubly sure. But, it did not work.

Things now stand at such a point that the major disputants in the seven-party alliance cannot afford to go it alone. They have either to take forward the peace process or to break it up. The second option would be too costly to the alliance, collectively and individually, as well as to much else that the Nepalis hold dear. The key differences exist between the Nepali Congress and the CPN-Maoist. Therefore, both need to come away a little further from their present positions to make the political transition successful. Besides, once the polls were postponed, the alliance partners have thought it better to set new agendas to bring the country out of the present muddle. Thus, they have decided on five agendas – implementation of republican declaration and full proportional representation, compliance with the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, reconstitution of the Council of Ministers and a change in working style, review of the 12-point understanding, as well as all subsequent understandings and agreements, and announcement of a new election date.

These issues could have been taken up earlier to shorten the period of confusion and uncertainty that has reigned over the country because of the second deferral of the polls. However, a discussion of these with a view to coming to a new understanding and removing the existing shortcomings can be expected to facilitate the peace process. Doubts are not entirely unfounded that mere agreement on republicanism and electoral system might not be enough at this stage, because, tomorrow, other outstanding issues could well impede progress towards the election and beyond. This requires that the political parties should sort out all important differences and misunderstandings, so that once a fresh election date was set, it would not be deferred yet again. The main point is that the outcome of the peace process should attain the noble objectives set in the political agreements and understandings based on institutionalisation of a fully democratic order and a restructuring of the state to respond to the needs of the Nepalis better.