Given the composition of the Nepalese Parliament, and looking at the dissonance that exists between key parties on the crucial question of how to move forward in the ideological-political domain in the post-monarchy period, it caused no surprise that the House failed to elect a Prime Minister by a simple majority once again on Monday. This is the fifth consecutive failure to do so in the space of two months; and there is little reason to be optimistic that the sixth such parliamentary vote, scheduled for

September 5, will clinch the issue and set the Himalayan state on a firm republican course after the eclipsing of kingship. The largest elected party in the legislature, United Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), which is short of a simple majority, needs to scale down its rhetoric and revolutionary sights — even if only tactically — and approach other parties in good faith in order to produce a government of national unity. It is now evident that unless this is achieved, it might be near impossible for the peace process to be culminated to everyone’s satisfaction, and for the country’s new constitution to be drawn up. If Nepal’s political matrix is unable to take these steps, and the basic law replacing the one that existed under the royal dispensation is not quickly brought into existence, Nepal could easily become unsettled and possibly come to endure a phase of anarchy. This would badly hurt a very poor country, and obviously have security implications for India, which has an open border with Nepal. Madhav Kumar Nepal, who heads the United Communist Party of Nepal (Marxist-Leninist), is the caretaker Prime Minister and there is an administration on the ground. But caretaker regimes are by definition of brief tenure. If this understanding is transgressed, the legislature’s legitimacy could be brought into question. In any case, its administrative machinery is likely to be disregarded by the populace.
Mr Nepal had earlier become Prime Minister in what can be called an ad hoc arrangement, but was obliged to resign last June under Maoist pressure. Maoist chief Pushpa Kumar Dahal, who likes to be called “Prachanda” or the “fierce one”, was keen to become Prime Minister once again. But he finds he is unable to do so through constitutional means. The House won’t give him the needed support. The stalemate can possibly be ended if the principal political formations — besides the Maoists, the UCPN (M-L), Nepali Congress and the Madhesis — are serious about reflecting on the contours of a post-royalist Nepal. Till now, they have engaged in an unseemly fight, not unlike the so-called Afghan warlords after the Soviet ouster in 1989, in a bid to grasp more than their own share of power. If the power-avarice can be overcome, and a government of national unity brought about with due political give-and-take, it might be less difficult than has been the case so far to finalise the peace process and arrive at an acceptable constitution.
It was the inability of the Nepalese parties to put the peace process in the bag that led to the failure of Parliament to draw up a constitution by the May deadline this year, and produce a Prime Minister that would command the country’s attention. If the Maoists demobilise their armed cadre, rein in the Young Communist League that likes to go on the rampage, and restore to the people the properties they acquired illegally, it will be easier for them to strike a deal with other parties. And then it might be possible to bring about a constitution within the extended period of one year to which the parties have agreed.