Maverick,

I was actually having a different kind of hangover when I replied to you. It was of several threads of discussion going on in NepalDemocracy Group regarding the same issues we are talking here.

Spirit of the interim constitution, matter of “check and balance”, credential of Maoists and so on have been in our discussions there. So my mind was carrying over some debate from there.

Anyway, here are mero bicharharu regarding your questions.

Idealism/Realpolitik

I don’t know if you had a chance to read my earlier posting above, however, I was suggesting NC/UML to stay away from the government for their own good (to be specific, for a better election result next time). It had very little to do with idealism.

Allow me to share some explanation from my postings in ND forum:

“I think the best strategy for NC/UML to come back

to power and save the country if that is what it would be is not to

fight with Maoist (for power sharing, for example) but to work towards

winning people's sympathy and trust.

In my view, if NC/UML let Maoist run the government, that will be a

baby step towards winning people's sympathy. NC/UML needs to show

patience, humility, soul-searching and audacity to win people's

sympathy and heart. There is no other way. And, most importantly,

there is not enough time for that. Two years will pass like a blink.

NC/UML better prepare for the next election rather than play

mathematics of this election.”

“This election showed that, for wining the election, NC must not depend

on it's "democratic" credential, international "recognition", it's

role in the peace process or the error-mongering of Maoists only.”

Agreement for coalition:

There was one. As we know it by SPA-M coalition. However, it was for the transitional period before the election. There is not any agreement/understanding for the post-election time. One might ask, even if there isn’t any agreement, why can’t we continue the same old coalition or at least the spirit of it.

Here is why. First of all, election happened and it’s mandate should override everything else.

Second, if we look at the pattern of power-sharing in SPA-M coalition (Maoist sharing equal power with NC and UML) and the election result (Maoist securing 100% more seat/power than NC and UML each), we must conclude that Nepali people rejected the pre-election power-sharing scheme and they clearly said we want Maoist in the driving seat.

People have spoken. That is why.

Interpretation of the popular mandate:

Even without the correction I had suggested earlier, Maoist are unprecedentedly, overwhelmingly ahead of the runner up parties (Maoist 36%, NC 18%, UML 17%). This, as a matter of fact, should be more powerful even than, let’s say, a simple majority with a close runner up (51%- 49%).

So with or without the consideration of the correction for proportional representation meant for Constituent Assembly, it is absolutely clear that people voted for Maoist to drive the gaadi, not for three drivers each from Maoist, NC and UML.

Maverick, this, I hope might be able to convince you that I am talking realpolitik and not idealism.

Nepe