Fortunately, all sides finally compromised and the cabinet was formed with 24 ministers from the three parties. The Maoists met the CPN-UML and the home minister also became the deputy prime minister. The erstwhile ruling party, the Nepali Congress will now sit in the opposition.

In Pakistan, on the other hand, the two main political parties, the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), which had combined forces to engineer Pervez Musharraf’s exit, are now estranged, after squabbling about reinstating judges and the presidential election.

Third, Nepal’s two powerful neighbours, India and China, have adopted an overt hands-off policy on domestic Nepali politics, whereas Pakistan is inextricably linked with the United States in the war on terror. The US military has conducted several strikes through the Pakistani army along the troubled north-west frontier and in Balochistan against suspected militants. Pakistani citizens and soldiers have suffered over 2000 casualties last year in the retaliatory strikes by militants.

Fourth, the tolerance of the Nepali electorate for inept democrats seems higher because the country has experienced rule by several governments in the last couple of decades, albeit overseen by the monarch. Contrast this to the history of democracy in Pakistan where each time the politicians faltered, the military seized power with the silent approval of the civilian populace. It happened during the governments led by Bhutto senior, Benazir and Sharif, who were perceived as inefficient and corrupt. But the habit of democracy can take root only if politicians are given a chance to fail, and fail again and again by the citizens and other state institutions. Pakistani citizens have to develop tolerance for these failures, and guard their liberties jealously against the military.

... contd.