Nepal’s dual transformation from war to peace and authoritarianism to democracy faces stiff challenges, some as a result of the country’s legacy of uneven economic and political development and others as the result of systemic problems in governing process, especially in creating an environment propitious for democratisation.

In theory, Nepal’s is a case of the most common form - a transition after regime collapse, but the recent trend suggests that we have an authoritarian-pluralist system, where politics is constrained and individuals must conform to internalise tyranny and paradoxically be responsible for the eventual emergence of despotic democracy. There are examples of gradual transformation from limited pluralism to dictatorship to total seizure of political power. Although dismantling of authoritarianism is a necessary condition for democratisation, the politicians are rather manoeuvring to change the basic rules of the game to serve their partisan interests, thereby increasing uncertainty about the basic structure and rules of the political process. Although many of those identified with the royal regime have been relieved of their posts and other forces have formed a ‘grand alliance’, a new cycle of institutionalisation is yet to begin. Frustration among the majority is widespread as parties and other interest groups manoeuvre and counter-manoeuvre in order to place their favourites in advantageous positions.

The legitimacy of the new regime continues to weaken in the public eye, partly due to indecisive leadership and inconsistent policies, and partly due to the growing number of assertive groups that are attracting new supporters. The post-monarchy rule has amply demonstrated that although the pluralist interests of the people are articulated freely without fear of repression, the political order that has gained foothold can at best be called a ‘manipulated’ democracy. It sometimes seems that the democratic agenda has only suffered more setbacks.

With the failure to hold the constituent assembly elections on time, we have lost a crucial opportunity to build a base for sustainable democracy, to institute economic reforms, work towards maturity of democracy and fulfil people’s basic needs. Instead, we are trapped in a tense situation that may lead to more friction and further dampen the hopes of the people. Such a dismaying scenario is characterised by the organisations and actors who cannot perceive the gravity of the situation and hence choose to stand by whatever happens. The political institutions are devoid of public support and respect of intellectuals that are necessary to consolidate democracy.

The lack of political will and strategies for reforms, unstable social condition and prevailing old, authoritative approach to interpret reality and resolve differences, present what may be termed a “holographic picture”. The country has been unable to accommodate diverse interests that impart legitimacy to democratic governance. It rather seems that democracy

is on the verge of a watershed event.

No doubt, politics is more open than what it was during the royal regime. But it would be misleading to assume that Nepali politics will soon be moving in a linear fashion to underwrite a democratic society without any crisis that Huntington describes as “stalemate, inability to reach decisions, and susceptibility toward demagoguery domination by vested interests”. These constitute major hurdles to democratic consolidation. Another reason for disenchantment among people is that the armed forces still enjoy extraordinary autonomy than would be considered acceptable in a democracy.

Whereas the main challenge is to accomplish “stabilisation, routinisation, institutionalisation, and legitimisation of the patterns of politically relevant behaviour,” the government’s failure to meet the people’s basic demands — of identity, security, and economic development — have now become the main concern.

The tense environment with potential sources of friction has emerged due to lack of fresh faces and little change in politics. The international community hails PM Koirala as the leader of the democratisation process in Nepal, while, in reality, he is a de facto autocrat who has monopolised almost the entire political space but conspicuously remains clueless and devoid of any direction.

For the emergence of new plurality, Nepal needs a different breed of political leaders who are capable of running the institutions of democracy and can produce tangible results with a sense of loyalty toward the society. Nothing is more important than individual and group freedom in order to consolidate peace so that contending interests and values may foster relations between different groups and cultures by means other than conflict and that the rules are applied fairly, consistently and predictably in deference to the rule of law.

Thapa is professor of Politics, TU