Polarised spring

Events that take place in the springtime, particularly in April, have generally shaped contemporary Nepali politics. If the People's Movement in 2006 ensured that King Gyanendra had to give way and the people reigned supreme, in April 2008 elections to the Constituent Assembly threw up an unexpected result, leaving the Maoists with the single largest vote share. This spring, Nepal faces a multitude of challenges, from pushing ahead with the writing of the constitution and the peace process in general, to ensuring a semblance of governance and strengthening of democratic institutions. Yet with little substantive movement on any one of these fronts, there is also increasing political uncertainty, a sense of disarray and a deep fear about whether the ambitious political experiment – that of engaging with a former rebel force in a democratic framework, and redrawing the social contract – can last.

Nepali politics has become complicated due to four sets of separate yet inter-linked relationships. This includes ties between the Maoists and the Nepali Congress, the two key drivers of this process; the Maoists and India, which was the external guarantor and behind-the-scenes mediator during the transitional period; the Maoists and the Nepal Army, the ties between which have moved from being that of erstwhile warring sides to that of legitimate domination and subordination; and the centre (Kathmandu) and outside, especially where ethnic movements are strong. With the Maoists as a common factor within all of these tracks, they are currently the most important, decisive and powerful political force in Nepal. But it also means that the onus of taking the process forward rests primarily, though by no means exclusively, on them. The fact that this has not happened must thus rank as a blot on the commitment and credibility of the Maoist party.