A transition to democracy from military rule is tougher than one from monarchical rule. Look at the cases of Pakistan and Nepal. Pakistan, which has been plagued by military rule, shook off the yoke of its former army chief, Pervez Musharraf, when the latter was forced to resign from the presidency. Nepal formally ended its 240-year-old monarchy in June 2008, as a coalition government led by the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (CPN-M) leader, Pushpa Kamal Dahal (Prachanda), took office after multi-party elections. Both countries have a long acquaintance with authoritarian rule interspersed with short bouts of democratic governance. But the chances for democratic consolidation in Nepal are better than those for Pakistan for several reasons.

First, the transformation of Nepal into a federal republic means that the monarch will not be able to wait in the wings and create opportunities for his return. In contrast, the military will continue to oversee the performance of politicians in Pakistan despite the current army chief General Kiyani’s reported reluctance to intervene in the political arena.

Second, the power sharing between the winners in the Nepal Constituent Assembly elections has been relatively smooth, albeit with a couple of hiccups. During the presidential elections, the fourth-largest party, the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum (MJF), switched sides at the last minute and supported the Nepali Congress candidate leaving the Maoists seething with a sense of betrayal. The most dangerous moment that could have scuttled the chances of democracy in Nepal came when the main parties could not agree on portfolios in the new government. The Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist- Leninist (CPN-UML), the third-largest party in the Constituent Assembly, even boycotted the oath-taking ceremony of the new cabinet because the Maoists had rejected their demand that their candidate’s home ministry portfolio be ranked second in the pecking order.

... contd.