Nepal’s political rites of passage

Nepal’s transition from war to peace seems to be chaotic and many have warned of impending anarchy entailing collapse of the social order and the fragmentation of the nation. This, however, is not the case because the transition, though messy and confusing, is not anarchic due to the existence of some form of order within the political change. This report attempts to show the country’s political processes and cultures and reassess the state of the peace process. The state’s response to instability has been to increase policing and public security efforts, although it has been undermined by a lack of strategic clarity, the politicisation of policing and internal rivalries within the security sector.

The paper reports that:

• Nepal is experiencing neither revolution, nor anarchy, nor chaos but is in the midst of a complex rite of passage.
• The Maoists are highly organised and disciplined in the midst of a polarised atmosphere of factionalised political parties.
• There is no interest in renewed war by either side although some elite support renewed conflict if India approves.
• Some political groups are pressing ethnic and regional agendas and there is an increase in organised crime and political violence.
• The transition to federalism will present the most serious challenge, and conflict risk, of the near future.
  

The publication makes the following conclusions:

• The Maoists’ election victory has shaped many subsequent developments because their impact is real and holds the possibility of more fundamental transformation and revolutionary change.
• The Maoists were protagonists and probably still are – and perhaps the only ones on the political stage because their party is the only one that initiates and acts.
• The institutions that govern political behaviour are often detached from the systems that regulate power struggles and relations.
• Other new ethnic, regional or ideology-based movements have accepted the established political culture of the Maoists although they still pose an existential threat with the real conflicts still being played out.
• The peace process is not heading for a neat, logical conclusion.