Either Nepali politics is incredibly unscrupulous or it is a trailblazer, with some of the more sensitively democratic politicians chaperoning a post-conflict society. Take the case of the elections for the prime minister, which is hanging fire as Himal Southasian goes to press.
First, the background. Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal ('Prachanda') resigned on 4 May 2009, when President Ram Baran Yadav overruled his order firing the chief of the army staff of the Nepal Army, citing constitutional irregularity. Now, Madhav Kumar Nepal had lost in two constituencies to the Maoists in the elections of April 2008, but it was the Maoists who suggested to the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) – Madhav Nepal's party – that he be nominated to the Constituent Assembly because his skills in consensual politics would help in the writing of the constitution.
Lo, as soon as the Maoists exited government, Madhav Nepal was propelled to lead the 22-party coalition. Thereupon, he became (together with President Yadav) the archenemy of the Maoists – as a transforming party that still needs 'enemies', in accordance with its lingering rebel-type working methods. The accusation that a two-constituency failure was made prime minister fell flat when it came from the Maoists.
Soon enough, the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) realised that it had given up the government in haste. After all, it had all the important ministries, including Finance, Defence, Peace and Reconstruction, Law and Justice, General Administration, Labour and Transport, Local Government, Information, Tourism – and even Home, in the custody of a Maoist faithful. But then, all the birds in hand had been let go in a show of fatal bravado. When the Maoist leaders realised that they could not break the 22-party alliance and make up a 301-member majority in the 601-seat Constituent Assembly – which would have required them to wean away just 72 members – they opted for bull-headed action. They maintained that their 229 members in the House, or 38 percent, represented a 'mandate to rule'; but when no one else was convinced, they decided to get back into government by using 'state capture from the street'.