The formation of Interim Government (IG) can be marked as an important step towards facilitating political stability, although there is no blueprint for the majority of the people to exercise their political power through participation in democratic deliberation and decision-making. Democracy presents an institutional framework that is characterised by non-violent and egalitarian values. The current political discourse is but a phase of simple liberalisation, and so liberalisation without democratisation is possible.

However, if we think of political development as an organic process, arising out of interactions in specific social and cultural environment, Nepal’s situation can be described as ‘blocked transition’, or a regime of ‘conservative transition’, or a case of ‘pacted transition’ in which the toppled king’s rule gave birth to democratic system but without guaranteeing no return to authoritarianism.

One can safely claim that democracy does deliver what it promises, even if imperfectly. But an elite-based democracy runs the danger of being overwhelmed by anti-democratic and populist forces. While political liberalisation is the starting point of democratisation, democratic consolidation is complete institutionalisation of democratic practices.

Political mobilisation that brought the SPA and Maoists to power was largely urban, and the government failure to respond effectively to the problems of the rural poor has created conditions for the need of continuous growth of popular participation, the lack of which appears to be seriously challenging the legitimacy of the current system.

Democratisation aims to create a society which enables the citizens to exercise power through participation and to assess their capacity to govern by themselves. The development of democracy cannot be fully explained by any single factor. It requires the political actors to fully internalise the rules of the game, and substantial reforms so that they cannot resort to non-electoral practices to acquire office. Nevertheless, the immediate problem is how the political leadership advances liberal governance and how the citizens, especially the poor, can be brought into new policy platforms and social relationships of responsibility, accountability, and participation.

The April awakening had obligated both the monarchy and the Maoists to come to terms with democratisation since their respective position had considerably weakened. It is recognised that a trend towards liberalisation is there, although the state is still Leviathan, functioning as an agent of exploitation of the people by both the ruling elites and external forces. Even if it is agreed that Nepal’s transition toward democracy is irreversible, many of the remnants of the old political order are there to obstruct the creation of a new state.

The peace agreement was a political bargain in which the Maoists agreed to a democratic regime and market economy with limited socio-economic reforms and the parliamentarians agreed to Maoists’ participation in the new political regime with some inevitable socio-economic reforms. Both agreed to resolve their differences through reshaped rules of political game to be democratically institutionalised through CA polls. But most of the ongoing efforts revolve around only legal and political exercises to pave the basis for political adjustments.

Current obstacles to peace include weak rule of law, discredited party system, persistent inequality and poverty, erosion of democratic institutions, and social exclusion. It is quite likely that succession of weak, illiberal, and dysfunctional governments would continue to plague the suffering people.

It is unlikely that the king would voluntarily abdicate the throne as long as clientelism, patrimonialism, authoritarian and dynastic political culture continue to serve as major political means for distribution of resources and the so-called dominant classes continue to defend their longstanding relationships with the state instead of decentralising power to the grassroots.

It has to be seen whether CA elections prove meaningful to enable the citizens to get rid of these very people to safeguard and sustain democracy.

The eight parties now possess decision-making oligopoly, still it cannot provide the foundation for political settlement of various issues. And the two key factors for reconstruction to restore legitimacy in the political system are: reformation of power structure from bottom up and institutionalisation of participation. There is merit in the thinking that Nepal needs a broad political reform based on institutional criteria concerning power-sharing and power-division dimensions. Given the fragile democratic structures and inadequate constitutional checks in the polity, the civil society has a great role to play in encouraging the entrenchment.

Thapa is professor of Politics, TU