What the Maoists find galling is that the NC, UML and the MJF (which reneged on a previous deal with the Maoists) reached an agreement on the day of the voting that ensured defeat for the independent activists that the Maoists had supported.

The current division of power may be a blessing in disguise as the four major parties have a representative each in positions of power. What all parties have to learn from the presidential experience is that betrayals are part of the democratic process. They have experienced the first taste of horse-trading and betrayals that characterise modern democracies, particularly the sub-continental variety — vividly demonstrated in the recent trust vote in the Indian Parliament.

Any transition to democracy requires participants to compromise. By its very nature, a compromise means that a party will experience a partial win and a partial loss at the same time. As the Roman statesman and philosopher Marcus Tullius Cicero said, both reason and justice must somehow be diluted to meet the needs of the political life. For instance, the Maoists should assess how their goal of social justice through land reforms can be integrated with the demands and concerns of the old elite, many of whom belong to the landed classes.

But all parties, as the new president noted, aim to establish peace in the country, ensure social justice and the rule of law. Using this as the starting point, the Maoists can craft a dynamic but durable alliance with other parties. That will depend on their ability to compromise and negotiate with the other parties. The Maoists lost the MJF’s support at the last minute because they did not address the Madhesi party’s unhappiness with the former’s Madhesi presidential nominee, nor did they agree to the demand that the vice president also be a Madhesi. The wily old establishment parties, the ULP and the NC, successfully used the rift to wean the MJF away by skilfully accommodating their demands. An old guard that sees itself as the rightful heir to the now-abolished monarchy cannot be expected to relinquish power quietly to the revolutionaries-turned-statesmen.

What matters now is that all parties quickly accustom themselves to the cycle of wins and losses within a democratic framework, and concentrate on increasing the number of wins by honing their negotiating skills. The Maoists are learning the democratic game, but not as quickly as they should. In the run-up to the presidential elections, the Maoists first approached their erstwhile enemies, the NC and the UML for a consensus candidate, and when talks fell through, they turned to the MJF. After their defeat, they switched their stance from an initial refusal to form the new government to a conditional agreement to lead the new administration. The three conditions issued by Prachanda are: the other parties have to agree not to oust the Maoist government for at least two years, allow the Maoists to push through a minimum programme that presumably includes land reforms, and dissolve their “unholy alliance”. These betray the inexperience of the Maoists; a country that has seen 16 governments in 18 years is not likely to change its style of functioning.

Like the Indian National Congress in India, which ruled the country for an almost uninterrupted four decades, the Nepali Congress too has to learn that it does not have a monopoly on power. (The NC prime minister, Girija Prasad Koirala, reluctantly left office in June after a protracted ostrich-like “head in the sand” stand-off.) And like the INC which now heads the UPA coalition government, the NC too can hope to head a future coalition.

The success of democracy in Nepal depends on the ability of the participants to play by the rules of the game. The successful player will ensure that losses will be followed by wins. There are no permanent enemies or permanent friends in the democratic arena. It is heartening to note that, by fighting within the boundaries of the democratic set-up, the old guard and the new power-holders in Nepal have made the decision to act, at least for the moment, within the rules of the democratic game. Intransigence is not an option any more.

The writer is a fellow at the Centre for Policy Research, Delhi

express@expressindia.com