The complexities of the peace process, while it might excite some, will depress others. Global peacemaking and conflict resolution experiences show that getting the two sides to the conflict to sit down and work out a negotiated settlement accounts for roughly 20 per cent of the work towards building lasting peace. The remaining 80 per cent involves keeping the two sides committed to the settlement, implementing its terms and articles and helping bring order and normalcy in society.

In this context, there are many loopholes in Nepal’s peace process. The SPA and the Maoists seem to be more concerned about power-sharing and less about consolidating peace. Otherwise, they would not have spent so much time on just two political issues: the dissolution of reinstated parliament and the formation of an interim government and an interim parliament. They seem to harbour dissimilar and contesting visions about the nature of the state, the status of monarchy, modality of elections, economy, nationalism, foreign policy and power-sharing. The conflict-affected groups — ethnic and indigenous people, Dalits, women, Madhesis and youth — are demanding a legitimate space in decision-making. Pro-King forces are questioning the legitimacy of the eight-party establishment. New polarisations between the Left and the democratic forces, between republican and monarchist forces and between nationalistic and subsidiary identities are certain to make the transition difficult.

The peace process has so far delivered an oligarchy of party leaders rather than a popular democracy. Party leaders have shown no appetite for pluralism — the interim legislature has no opposition, and consensus decisions leave power in the hands of few party leaders. Ad hoc pre-negotiation of important issues threatens to undermine the constitutional process. Mainstream parties have also devoted little attention to the question of constitutional reforms. Few have instituted internal changes to tackle corruption, patronage and exclusion.

The principal challenges facing the peace process include diverting attention from solely political issues to economic and socio-cultural factors too; reformation of both the armies and arms management; dealing with the Maoists and the monarchy; state restructuring; strengthening of governance and guaranteeing that the nation does not plunge back into conflict. Other challenges are: unchanging attitude of political leaders, bureaucracy and judiciary; little progress in electoral preparation for the CA polls; political, social, cultural and economic exclusion and the resulting unrest in Tarai and other parts; geopolitics, role of India and international community; bringing democracy and peace to the grassroots level; internally displaced people and lack of people-to-people reconciliation; partisan role of civil society leaders; security sector reforms; discrepancy in the number of Maoist weapons as compared to their combatants and use of child soldiers; government’s failure to deliver in the face of high expectations; and an opaque, elite-driven approach to politics.

Many observers are cautiously optimistic about the peace process in Nepal. Even a slight misreading of the prevalent situation can leave room for renewed conflict. The parties and Maoists are increasingly marginalising monarchy, security and traditional forces. The major actors are in open competition for legitimacy and public support.

The prizes of sustained peace are clear: It will allow Nepal to build a genuine democracy where human rights are respected and real development emphasised. Conflict resolution is intrinsically linked to inclusive nation building. The foundation of change is unity in diversity supported by inclusive democratic system with accommodating democratic leadership. This can strengthen unity and Nepal’s distinctiveness in the international scene.

Sustainable resolution of conflicts requires wider participation of all the parties and their interest mediation, rather than just those of conflicting parties. Peace cannot be created if the outcome of negotiation creates its own enemies. Emanuel Kant asserted in his treatise Perpetual Peace, “No treaty of peace shall be held valid in which there is tacitly reserved matter for a future war.” Unless the root causes of the conflict are addressed and the Maoists democratised, sustainable peace cannot be achieved in Nepal and conflict may reignite.

Peace is not just the absence of war, but also epitomises economic prosperity, social harmony, unity and brotherhood. The present peace process might excite some but it also reminds others of the relapse of armed conflict after peace agreements in conflict-torn states such as Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Liberia and Angola. Thus, in order to consolidate peace process, parties to the conflict should keep their nerve and honour their commitments to peace and genuine democracy.

Dr Rizal is visiting professor, TU