The ripple created by the 12-point understanding reached between the seven party alliance (SPA) and the Maoists is now settled. The understanding was under attack from two sides - domestic critics and the United States. Humiliated and marginalised, the political parties’ leaders had no other option but to strike a deal for mounting a mass struggle against the rise of royal absolutism. It was also an initiative for bringing the Maoists into the mainstream multiparty politics. Moreover, the hard-core royalists had provoked the parties to broaden their support base when they started defining the royal regime in contravention of the spirit of limited monarchy. So it is natural that the royalists who are engaged in a zero-sum game with the Maoists cannot think of a political solution to the ensuing conflict, as any substantive political dialogue would not accept any compromise short of ceremonial King, if not republic for the time being. Thus, the SPA-Maoist understanding, recently renewed with fresh commitment, naturally perturbs the royalists.

The US government’s response to the 12-point understanding is based on its own standard of dealing with similar governments. Ambassador James Moriarty was in New Delhi when the 12-point understanding was being finalised. His earlier reaction was also positive. Later, he and his government’s view changed in order to drive a wedge between the SPA and the Maoists. The US is of the opinion that the Maoists cannot be reliable insofar as the issue of liberal democracy is concerned. Nor would the parties be able to tame them once the Maoist power becomes formidable. Pointing out the difference between the action and words, the US warns the political parties not to be so gullible on the Maoist issue. However, given the ground realities and the decline of the role of monarchy in Nepal, the US assessment seems to be unrealistic. The US wants that the King should be closer to the political parties by bringing the latter into constitutional processes. It is not clear to us: Will the US be satisfied with the restoration of the derailed constitutional order under which a fresh election to parliament and formation of a new government would be in place? The present conflict is not only limited to the restoration of the Constitution, but also to the need for addressing a common agenda of constituent assembly as the only way out for the resolution of the present crisis. Although the Maoists had put forth this agenda as the bottom line for ending the conflict, it has now been owned by the SPA as well as by a large section of civil society.

Nepali political leaders have shown courage, maturity and dynamism by reaching out to the Maoists for the cause of democracy. If the Maoists change their views and want to join the mainstream party politics or commit themselves to the democratic processes to be established by a duly elected constituent assembly, why should we run after the hypothetical assessment that parties should not trust them? The ongoing Maoist metamorphosis both ideologically and functionally would indeed set a very good trend for the consolidation of democracy in Nepal.

The 12-point understanding is thus a victory for democracy. A fierce force committed to the hilt to the dogmatic Maoist ideology of people’s democracy is in the process of transformation. One of the important sections of the present CPN (UML) has also come from similar background but has changed both ideologically and functionally into a moderate parliamentary party. The CPN-UML had also the distinction of being the first communist party in parliament and in government which has ruled the country for nine months. Its track record in governance was not bad contrary to its populism that it needed for a longer stay in power after winning election. The UML leaders’ suspicion that the native and external forces would never allow the communists to come to power was thus belied showing a high degree of flexibility of the Nepali parties and people.

Developments in India and Nepal have shown that ideological rigidity as was generally understood in the post-World War II period no longer deters political forces. The collapse of communist regimes in Eastern Europe including the Soviet Union has invalidated the thesis that transition from totalitarianism to democracy would not be easy as in the case of authoritarianism. Authoritarian regimes have elements of pluralism allowing the people to enjoy limited freedom unless they do not pose a threat to the regime. Thus, compared to totalitarian system, authoritarian regimes seem to have a longer lifespan, but they are more vulnerable to opposition pressures. If the political forces are determined to launch a peaceful mass movement with clear-cut goals, the days of such regimes are numbered.

The SPA-Maoist understanding would also provide an impetus to the peaceful movement if the Maoists also lowered their guns. After all, democratic culture matures only in peaceful protests for change.

Prof Baral is executive chairman, NCCS