Instead of instituting a “dual reform process” or what Putnam likes to call a “two-level game” in which economic and political liberalisation are pursued simultaneously, the transition government has only been successful in installing a hybrid mix of democratic and authoritarian institutions, corruption and elitism. Hence the transition period is filled with uncertainties.

New democracies often face such dilemmas. But here the mediation of diverse interests has only been supported by a handful of institutional arrangements for the building of a modern, secular and united state. The Putnam thesis goes: in order to survive, a regime must play both the games in an atmosphere where the rules of governance are formulated to safeguard the vital interests of all those involved, even though the game generally calls for “tough choices”. One might counter that Nepal is not necessarily regressing, nonetheless everyone would accept that it is progressing rather slow.

True, no political system is perfect in achieving total national unity and eliminating all the endemic conflicts. But the prolonged inability of the regime to find solutions to basic problems leads to the loss of its legitimacy. Although there is a positive relationship among institutions, development, good governance, and rapid economic growth, what makes a state legitimate in true sense of the term is its capability to protect human rights through the rule of law. The events of past few weeks have depicted the government’s insensitivity toward people’s grief and its inability to control the deteriorating law and order situation. The solution lies in starting a political process that leads to peace and reconciliation.

To be fair to the Koirala regime, some progress has been made, largely due to public pressure. But Koirala is neither a Nepali Havel nor a Nepali Deng Xiaoping to go down in history as the politician who missed a golden chance to transform the country. Neither the SPA leadership nor Koirala has ever seriously wrestled with underlying conceptual challenge

of transforming Nepal and integrating its diverse population. In uncertain times, the society sees its leader as the guarantor of law and order.

Although the inclusion process depends on ground realities and is lengthy and complex, it is also uncertain and with abstract goals. The opaque system created by SPA provides a veneer of control, but the reality is that the new generation has increasingly become disaffected and disengaged from politics. Nepali politics is characterised by poor governance, corrupt leadership and absence of rule of law.

Important issues (such as the nature of federalism and republic) have not been discussed in public forums. When political leaders draw support from a narrow segment of society, the transition period risks disruptions or appearance of new probabilities. It is not always feasible to consult all the people, direct or indirectly, but the fact remains that the process of transition relies on legitimacy in order to succeed and that democratic regimes can only survive when their societies are committed to them. An institution can command authority by being responsive to citizens and by demonstrating its effectiveness in solving their problems. Even if it was illegitimate, proclamation of a federal republic was not quite the turning point in Nepali politics. It only perpetuated the status quo with the old dynasty still in place.

It is not clear whether or how the Maoist militia that has been responsible for the loss of more than 13,000 lives and displacement of hundreds of thousands of innocent people will be integrated into Nepali Army — a costly strategy both in economic and political terms. But the twice-postponed CA elections, if held as scheduled, will mark the official end of Maoist insurgency and transition toward permanent peace. This will, in turn, pave the way for creation of a new constitution which will abolish the 240-year-old monarchy, mandate development of domestic political structures and boost inclusiveness. But dark clouds of doubt loom large as the election cannot be held under the existing law and order situation.

Moreover, the 601-member constituent assembly will forfeit its worth if it acts only as rubberstamp for the illegitimate decisions of the unelected parliament.

Even if there seems no immediate danger to democracy, formidable challenges remain, not the least because the present regime has little control in the countryside, particularly in the southern periphery of the country.

Nepal cannot move forward without effectively addressing the Madhesis’ demand of regional autonomy with the right to self-determination — a fundamental element of identity politics. While the constitutional provisions for minorities and disadvantaged people may cut some ice, only a strong and responsive political system can settle the long-raging grievances.

Thapa is professor of Politics, TU