The ‘unique’ democracy that Nepal’s interim constitution formalised when it came into existence in January 2007 had some dangerous provisions. It not only stood for the seven parties, including the Maoists, controlling the entire political process, but also saw little role of the opposition in it. The constitution also had no provision for the prime minister being removed from the post except when he died, or quit voluntarily. A provision to have him removed with a two-third majority was inserted a few months later following media criticism. In the appointment of the new prime minister, it favoured a ‘consensus’ among the seven parties, failing which a two-third majority would do.

During that time, all these parties were united against the king, and for them sidelining him was the real essence of the new democracy they sought to secure in Nepal. All these seven parties which together fathered the interim constitution also had no objection to G.P. Koirala acting as the prime minister as well as the acting head of state while continuing as president of the Nepali Congress. And so what if in the process, the neutrality of position that the head of state demanded was grossly compromised.

But the political context has changed following the conclusion of the constituent assembly polls recently. A new scenario has emerged. The constituent assembly will have altogether 25 parties, 18 more than the ‘monopoly rulers’ . Not only that, yesterday’s rulers are today’s political rivals since they contested elections against each other and are also rival claimants for power.

... contd.