The failure to heed the demands of the Madhesis for a federal system and proportional representation led to the flare-up in the Terai. The uprising appeared as a supplementary movement as it made a lasting impact on the country’s political landscape with far-reaching consequences for the future course of political developments.

As expected, the seven party alliance (SPA) in agreement with the Maoists has consented to adopt a federal polity and increase both parliamentary seats and proportional representation commensurate with the growth of population in the Terai with amendments to the interim constitution. The recent political events have exhibited several weaknesses of the eight parties. While framing the interim statute, no sensitivity was shown to the demands of the Terai people. Naturally, the consequence came as a great shock to those who overlooked the political realties of Nepal.

The people who had revolted against the authoritarian royal regime last April did not expect this of the new leadership. Indeed, the leaders did not seem to have realised people’s expectations, nor could link with those at the grassroots level. In fact, politicians did not look like leaders genuinely committed to democracy. Had they taken note of such a situation, they might have framed the interim statute to guide the future political course. But even as the government has consented to meet the demands of the Madhesis, the demands of other marginalised ethnic groups hang like the Damocle’s sword over their heads.

The political leaders should have learnt from past mistakes to keep abreast of the people’s aspirations for democratic dispensation in the awakened Nepali society. Divergence from the appropriate path would be highly costly for them. Hence, their future course of action should be tailored to fit in people’s aspirations.

It is saddening to note that no political party is truly democratic, both in structure and function. The leaders either tossed up by the popular movement or elected by the people to the seats of authority have often become undemocratic and non-responsive to people’s voices. They are not used to democratic socialisation at the grassroots level — a much needed process for democratisation and its steady development. For example, the promised election to the Constituent Assembly (CA) is only four months away. However, no party has seriously tried to educate people on its need and importance. Hardly one-fourth of the population has any idea of the Constituent Assembly and its election process. They could not take into confidence the people of various linguistic, ethnic and cultural backgrounds while making decisions concerning them.

How can a democracy flourish under such predominance of non-democratic practices? The major political parties lack democratisation and democratic practices in their structure and activity. Certainly, there will not be transparency and accountability in the government when such a party is in power. Internal democracy within all parties — with democratic ideals and programmes entrenched in their behaviour — is of paramount importance to foster democracy. Only internal democracy within political parties would allow a fair and free interaction among various segments in any party. If such an environment conducive to the growth of real democracy exists in the milieu of parties, then the society can march towards an all-embracing form of democracy.

To create an appropriate ambience for self-sustaining democracy, eminent political actors need to play pivotal roles in the political process to forge social harmony, promote cultural homogeneity, impart timely political education, and create an environment to eliminate socio-economic imbalances. To the emerging Nepali society characterised by geographical diversity and ethnic, cultural and linguistic divides, a consociational democracy looks more appropriate to enable people of various political leanings to take part in the decision-making process. It can provide a great impetus to the fledgling multi-party governmental system.

In view of numerous divides, a pragmatic approach to political accommodation for and power-sharing by various socio-ethnic groups must be applied to usher in an accommodative democracy. Proportional sharing in the polity and economy would be of enormous importance to stem social unrest and political turmoil.

Both ingenuity and willingness of the political actors are of immense importance to lift the country out of political turmoil. Unfortunately, the leaders are marked by the conspicuous absence of these vital traits now. The important question is, can the leaders invent political devices and constitutional mechanisms to ensure that the Nepali society keeps moving forward democratically?

Shrestha is ex-foreign ministry official