Nepal’s socio-political landscape is going to be drastically changed by the result of the Constituent Assembly election. The background, nature and futuristic consequences of CA are deterministic. Never in the history of modern Nepal had an all-embracing movement like Jana Andolan II been launched. The 1950 anti-Rana armed movement also aimed at holding CA election and promised political stability and popular sovereignty, but was soon forgotten by principal players of the movement — the King and the political parties — resulting in 1960 royal coup ushering in a full-fledged monarchical rule.

Political parties could be partially blamed for compromising the spirit of CA in the wake of rapid rise of monarchy as a de facto force. The king once again asserted his authority in 2002-2006 sidelining the political parties along with the blatant violation of the spirit of 1990 Constitution. The second experiment with multiparty system and semi-constitutional monarchy once again ended in absolute monarchy in 2005 when King Gyanendra usurped power by abusing the spirit of constitution.

The recurrent rise of monarchy led people to conclude that in Nepal, democracy and monarchy are antagonistic forces. Thus the broad coalition of forces of juxtaposed ideologies and strategic positions was possible. A moderate party like the Nepali Congress could turn republican. Now the major parties, namely the NC, CPN-UML and CPN-Maoist, are in common on almost all agendas for making “new Nepal”. Coming as it does against the background of the movement, the CA election is significant not only for drafting a new constitution but also for setting the pace for the country’s march to a federal republic, inclusive democracy and permanent peace. The election has belied all rumours of political backlash and uncertainty.

Now people are much concerned about consequences of CA election and likely unfolding scenario in the country. They are anxious about Maoist move to democratise Nepali polity and society. The Maoists need to be happy with holding of CA election and the mandate it is likely to get from the people because of its long-struggle for achieving it. In a democracy, parties’ rise and fall can be seen during periodic elections. Winston Churchill won the Second World War as one of the Alliance leaders even though his party was defeated in the election.

In political parties, charisma also matters but it is momentary because charisma needs to be institutionalised to achieve political stability. Sometimes, parties’ credible role during the crucial period of political development also arrests the erosion of party’s image. GP Koirala, despite his initial ambivalence towards progressive agenda such as abolition of monarchy and inclusive democracy, has proved to be the most pragmatic and visionary leader. His leadership of the Seven Party Alliance and government has earned both national and international acclaim. The SPA triumvirate — GP Koirala, Prachanda and Madhav Nepal — deserves three cheers for steering the complex course of Nepali politics. If they work in tandem in the future too, political stability and progress is assured. What the post-election politics requires is their unity, vision and capacity to adopt progressive agenda for improving people’s condition within the democratic framework.

Nevertheless, holding of election and formation of government alone do not guarantee stability and progress if the parties pick quarrels on small pretexts. The present political landscape is not likely to allow a single party to act independently of other partners. The continued cooperation and understanding is desirable due to broad ideological convergence of these forces. Since there is hardly any difference on their agenda, major parties have no qualm about continuing their mutual cooperation. Recent commitments of prominent leaders assure the Nepali people and international community that Nepali politicians can stand up to such an occasion. The practice of immediate consultation they adopt when crisis arises suggests that they are alive to the needs of time.

Despite all such positive developments, political leaders have yet to demonstrate that they have shed their narrow partisan spirit while conducting the affairs of the government. Modern political system demands impartiality, accountability and quick policy decisions. Parties’ failure to rise above petty interest would no longer be acceptable to the people. The tight-rope walking policies of the Interim Government had been justified by the excuse of CA election and the need to maintain SPA unity, but people now want order, security and effective governance. The making of constitution should also be less cumbersome and time consuming. Parties should try to reach a consensus on some tangled issues such as units of federal structure, respect for proportional representation as per the distribution of percentage of seats and adherence to the process of institutionalisation.

Dr Baral is executive chairman, NCCS