We have seen a change in power structure from royal totalitarianism to Maoist sultanism.

With the swift demise of monarchy that relied upon formidable patronage dispensation in a country ostensibly embedded with paranoid nationalism and with the holding of the CA election that brought the Maoists to power, Nepal has seen a miracle. Representatives of political parties are expected to create new models of social fibre, political culture, power structure, economic progress, and democratic governance with cognitive, affective and behavioural qualities worthy of modern citizens. But, in view of persistent selfish motives, factional discord, lack of vision, and multi-pronged demands, it appears that Nepali politics is in transition from the traditional totalism into conditional or freezing democracy, certainly when looked at from a normative perspective.

In view of the unprogrammed rollercoaster of political change without respect for rule of law and demographic equations, one may argue that the initiatives at best appear as an intermediate stage for power redistribution, offers a more pessimistic prognosis for democracy. Ours is still a political dispensation that has changed the power structure from royal totalitarianism to Maoists’ sultanism, which in the words of Diamond is termed ‘imitation democracy’ that retains some institutions of democracy to disguise authoritarianism. In our case, one must consider the swiftness of transformation and limitations of the political actors who have failed to bring about significant changes for the realisation of democracy. If it is a democracy enlargement in view of the transformation against socioeconomic inequalities and endeavour toward effective governance, then the Nepali republic, widely hailed as a ‘hollow democracy’ with various models bargaining for the exercise of state power, has only achieved what Warren calls ‘democratic dilemma of trust’, notwithstanding the CA serving as a

‘window-dressing’. If a monarch’s hegemony was a real obstacle to democratic aspirations, the political dispensation that emerged through CA election has permanently weakened the backbone of democracy.

To anyone who looks closely, repeated assertions for the rule of law are not sufficient; what is required is its democratic application with the unanimous proposition that a republic is qualitatively distinct from monarchy. By offering an opportunity to the Maoists to promote their interests and seek change without further recourse to violence, Nepal may become an adequate model that can provide a modulus of politics and coexistence in a diverse country. However, democratisation without reconfiguration of political forces in practising the theories of democracy and governance, particularly ‘good governance’, institution building and attitudinal support for socio-politically desirable objectives will inevitably provide muscles toward destabilisation of the state.

Importantly, when power resides firmly and solely at the helm and where leadership succession is highly resistant to reform, even political ideology dances to the leader’s tune, and the few continue to manoeuvre all the resources undermining the sovereignty and welfare of the people. This would ensure ‘democratic dictatorship’ with perpetual risk of reversal.

While we need not yet be upset merely because the Maoists are marginalising the democratic politics by whatever means and stepping toward their obsessive ideals, de-privatisation of services but privatisation of the state, the fact remains that not only the elite groups but common citizens also feel resentful and sceptical.

Liberal pluralists warn that democratic consolidation is a long-term endeavour in a country that was embroiled in deadly acts of terrorism and authoritarianism. Yet another problem is whether the Maoists of different political shades, acclaimed as proletarian democrats loyal to federal parliamentary dispensation, are sensitive to public opinion with reference to

‘democratic them’ against ‘autocratic them’ in their future line of action — a prerequisite to adhering to Nepal’s feeble exercise. Not long ago, assiduous Maoists had brilliant strategy and so enjoyed huge acclaim for anti-monarchy struggle, but their political understanding is still suspected by a number of political institutions that view their method as ‘participatory totalitarianism’ rather than radical participation.

Democratisation is closely linked with the ‘egalitarian transformative’ order and a modern citizen is open to global cultures and can participate at various levels of society with relative ease. Such aspects are not obstacles; society has been nurtured on this principle. But, if only the few politicians run everything in spite of a successful revolution, the opportunity of leading to revolutionary changes will just vanish either with a crisis coupled with yet another authoritarian hammer and compulsive decay or generate negative spillover to disintegrate the fibres of the nation, for good intent does not always bring forth positive results.

Thapa is professor of Politics, TU