What has happened in Nepal Politics so far?

[From 1996 to 2006, Nepal was wracked by a brutal civil war that pitted a Maoist
insurgency against the long-ruling monarchy, whose powerful army initially enjo
yed the support of the country's democratic political parties. Peace (brokered b
y India, with active United Nations support) came only after the Maoists and the
democrats agreed in 2005 to establish a Constituent Assembly. The first electio
n was held in 2008, two years after a people's movement" forced King Gyanendra to a
bdicate.In that election, the Maoists emerged as the largest party, winning 240
of the 601 seats.
& no single party or grouping could dominate the assembly.But this balance devol
ved into paralysis, as the parties consistently failed to overcome their differe
nces to make progress toward a constitution. The deadlock spilled over into the
country's politics, with shifting coalitions forming four successive governments
that collapsed within months, each time in a welter of recrimination from the p
arties that had been excluded.
In 2012, the Supreme Court intervened, decreeing that the Constituent Assembly h
ad outlasted its mandate, and installed an interim unity government led by the c
hief justice. In 2013, it ordered new elections that changed the political balan
ce, with the Nepali Congress emerging as the largest party and forming a coaliti
on government with the Communists.
The new government made a public commitment to deliver a new constitution by Jan
uary 22, 2015. But, though the Congress prime minister, Sushil Koirala, and his
Communist deputy, K.P. Oli, have presided over a more stable country, they have
been unable to forge consensus on a new constitution.
The parties remain sharply divided on several fundamental questions. Should a ne
w, federal Nepal be divided into states along a north-south axis, as the ruling
parties prefer, even though this would give the dominant hill castes of the nort
h a majority everywhere? Or should the new states be delineated according to loc
al ethnic identities, giving minority groups a sense of ownership of at least pa
rt of the country?
Should Nepal adopt a parliamentary system, an executive presidency, or some comb
ination of the two? Should it employ the British first-past-the-post electoral s
ystem traditionally used on the Indian subcontinent, or should it institute a fo
rm of proportional representation?
Perhaps the most important conflict is over how such questions should be settled
. The opposition Maoist-Madhesi alliance wants the decision rule to be consensus
, whereas the exasperated government proposes requiring a two-thirds majority.
The Maoists are disenchanted with the democratic process. The monarchists are ho
ping for a return to absolutism. Centralists view federalism as a fig leaf for s
ecession. And ethnic separatists of various hues are indeed seeking autonomy. Wi
th all sides keeping their powder dry, failure to reach a constitutional settlem
ent could plunge Nepal back into war.
It probably would not take long to raise the resistance. The Maoists disbanded t
heir 19,000-member army in 2011-2012, integrating 1,500 fighters into the regula
r army and pensioning off the rest. But many observers believe that the veterans
could easily be reactivated and equipped from hidden arms caches.
India which maintains open borders with Nepal, and received millions of Nepali ref
ugees during the civil war
has the most at stake, as renewed conflict would desta
bilize India's hill districts, while leaving its Himalayan borders vulnerable to
Chinese encroachment.

]
Peace process began in 2005-06.
1.First Constituent assembly(CA) elected in 2008 abolished Kingdom and declared
the establishment to be a federal democratic republic of Nepal.
2.Political parties have brought raging maoist insurgency into multi-party democ
racy therby transiting from insurgency to civil order.
3.Declared Nepal as a secular state.
4.Integrated Maoist combatants to regular army
5.Second CA elected in 2013 to finalise a constitution by Jan 2015
6.Consesus reached on division of responsibilities between an executive Presiden
t and Prime Minister.
Ethnic parties didn't perform well in 2nd CA and since 1990 parties organised al
ong ethnic lines performed badly.
What are the challenges
1. 3 features guiding constitution writing - federalism, republicanism & secular
ism.
Contentious one being Federalism because
i) Nepal is one of the oldest formal state in S.Asia with a 250 year history
and was ruled as ruled as a unified centralised state hence, it's
difficult to design a federal structure.
ii) Nepal is starting from absolute scratch in designing a federal structure
where a unitary state is to be divided into federating units/states
and it's not the case where people of different factions are coming toge
ther to form a union.
[India is a Union of States and federalsim/federal/federation doesn't fig
ure in the constitution and over 67 years of practicisng the division
of powers states have acquired a more important role than the constituti
on had envisaged for them.]
2.Federalism is also about financial feasibility and being inclusive in nature.U
nitary state favoured upper castes from the hills and excluded groups
like Madhesis, janjatis & Dalits, federal state is not be viewed narrowly in t
erms of administrative divisions alone but also taking into
consideration of the interests of the aforesaid groups. Hence new constitution
has to accomodate the aspirations of the different groups of people
without which constituion cannot be devised.Chinese suggest lesser number of s
tates and dividing the states running north-south touching China at
one end and India at one end.
3.There has been a massive internal migration within Nepal & this makes the fede
rating units/states to be ethnically & linguistically heterogenous
which augurs well for democratic process as it improves representation while d
omination in civil administration of certain advantaged groups due
to differences in access to education etc are yet to be equalized.
4.There is bound to be tension between Political community & Cultural community
like avadhis, bhojpuris etc. Political communities are based on a
membership of state & modern state is formed out of it, cultural community can
expand and transcend boundaries and if they aspire to be political
community there will be problem with borders. Eg. Tamils in SL aspiring for a
state of their own, earlier attempts of Nagas in India & Burma.
5.Delay in drafting a constituion is giving political space to some fringe eleme
nts which they had lost earlier. These fringe elements wants to
return to monarchy or Nepal being a Hindu state. Delay is also taking a toll o

n credibility and there is growing scepticism but the process is

irreversible in terms of drafting a new constituition and not returning to sta
tus quo ante.Delinking constitution drafting and reorganisation of
provinces/states inorder to prevent the latter from becoming a obstacle in wri
ting the constitutuion may be desirable but not feasible due to
political considerations.
6.Maoist are insisting that proportional representation that features in the ele
ction two CA that should be made part of new constituion to give
representation to the people who are not part of the system today.
When there is historic break from the past there are always some elements in the
society that live in the past and would like to restore status quo ante but the
process in moving forward is irreversible.While framing the Indian constituion
groups like communists boycotted the constitution making process but later they
accpeted the same constituion contested the election under the same constitution
.