The election results for the new constituent assembly are the most optimal outcome Nepal could have hoped for in achieving democratic stability. The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) pulled off an upset over the traditional ruling parties. As the single largest party, the Maoists will have veto power in the constitution-writing process. If the Maoists had lost, they would have grabbed their guns and “returned to the jungle”, as they had threatened. The situation would have reverted to the status quo of pre-2006 — a time when the Maoists fought the army in the countryside and effectively curtailed economic growth to about 3 per cent a year.

What are the implications of the election results for the future stability of a democratic regime in Nepal? Political scientists have mulled over when democrats “can relax” — that is, when one can say that democracy has been consolidated. Political scientist Andreas Schedler points out that stability occurs if the actors do not engage in anti-democratic behaviour such as resorting to violence, rejecting election results (as is happening in Zimbabwe and Kenya), and/or ignoring the rule of law. Of course, these indicators are context specific. One important indicator is, in Adam Przeworski’s words, the willingness of political actors to accept democracy not just as a route to power, but as a system where “parties lose elections”. The two-turnover test is one where the loser works within the democratic framework, and if he happens to win in the next election, the subsequent loser transfers power peacefully. In other words, the test establishes that all political actors have a stake in the survival of the democratic process.

... contd.