We celebrated the 3rd Loktantra Diwas last Friday. In the last three years, a number of steps have been taken to translate the mandate of the popular uprising into practice. However, the pace of consolidation of democracy and institutionalization of the processes have not been as smooth as desired. Eroding confidence among the major parties further raised serious doubts, not only on the institutionalization of the processes, but also the sustainability of the newly established system itself. The most worrying issue is the lack of confidence and proper coordination mechanism among the major stakeholders. The widening confidence gap between the ruling and opposition parties and deteriorating public trust to the processes are some of them. If it is not checked in time, it may lead us to a blank wall. Moreover, the government’s failure to translate the commitments made during the April movement and, also in the CA elections, has further contributed to generating disillusions and frustration among the masses. This is certainly not a good sign for democracy and for the smooth transitional processes. It is said that transition is the most complicated process as it may lead society towards fragmentation and anarchy if ill managed. This has been observed in many countries which either disintegrated or were caught up a vicious cycle of violence. When old orders are broken down and new orders yet to be established, the people’s expectations usually run very high and the morale of the state organs, particularly the security and government’s bureaucracy, becomes low. Meantime, people want immediate solutions to their long pending problems. These are the common symptoms of the post conflict environment. Therefore, the leadership, particularly those who are in the decision making levels, have to be efficient and sensitive. However, have we found our transition processes following the requisite steps and has our leadership shown extra sensitiveness towards the public perceptions? Certainly, we don’t see that. It was because our peace process was not institutionalized. All the decisions were taken particularly in the earlier stages on an ad hoc basis. Flaws in the process were evident from the very beginning. It was very obvious that the Maoist combatants, when they joined the government, should have been disarmed and rehabilitated. It was the minimum requirement that was not met. If the leaders had been sensitive, the problems we are experiencing would have been avoided much earlier. The second flaw in the peace process is the lack of true commitment towards the process of the UCPN (Maoists). From their activities it is plain that their leaders are not sincere and committed to institutionalizing the processes. Moreover, they are not ready to commit themselves on the democratic political framework that has been envisaged by the April 2006 movement. Furthermore, they have not internalized the achievements achieved after that movement. It has also raised serious doubts about their true commitment towards competitive multi-party democracy and universal values of human rights. Their leaders and cadres continually involve themselves in undemocratic activities which has become the hurdle for making transition smoother. Still, many Maoist leaders and members are not willing to adapt to the changed situation and contextualize themselves in the new system. This has provided enough space for democratic community in the country to suspect them and their activities, even when taken with good intentions. There is no need to go to the distant past. If we look back at the decisions they have taken and the remarks of their leaders over the past one year, it would make the matter transparent. Their role in the presidential election last year, the decision to remove the priests at Pashupati Nath temple or the decision not to extend the tenure of 8 generals, or the PM’s direction for forceful inclusion of Maoist army members in the National Game have all been controversal. Even their encroachment in the judiciary and recent attack on Tribhuvan University VC and Rector by their student organization has further raised doubts about them and their intentions. All these decisions have generated not only controversies but also produced negative results not only for them and their party but also to the nation itself. The latest episode of removing the CoAS with some of the obsolete charges is a part of their immature decision which has already generated enough controversies, and it is again going to produce negative results for them and the democratic processes of the country. This move has further raised questions as to whether our civilian authority would have real control over the security forces or not. Their immature decision has received strong resistance not only from the army but also the political parties and international community. It can be argued that the controversial moves of the Maoists have contributed, not only to widen the political polarization in the country, but also caused considerable damage to the country’s prestige and eroded its independent decision making on its own internal matters.