Foreign embassies based in Kathmandu give out much aid money to strengthen "civil society." Indeed much funding has gone into strengthening "civil society" as both bridges and bulwarks between the state and "the people".

And yet in the embassy backing of the king's move, we see a serious contradiction. In the grey area of currently defined "constitutional rights", the stringent standards of the "rule of law" usually so stridently called for by our foreign friends, appears to have wavered. Furthermore, instead of seeking to strengthen civil society with the creation of public spaces with which to discuss, debate and attempt to resolve political crises, unilateral decisions have been made "for the good of the country" and "the welfare of the people."

Civil society analytically understood requires the stabilisation of a system of rights as part of an enabling normative context which guarantees spheres of individual freedom within society. In the monarch's maneuver, backed by embassies, there is no notion of the necessity of people themselves learning the trials of democracy, of learning through their mistakes and the potential positive outcomes of reaching that level of dissatisfaction which brings afresh the energies of people to rise up into public action on their own terms as "the people".

The question then remains on what basis do embassies then back the active crippling of that which they ostensibly seek to help build? From what I understand, embassies are: historically un-informed, dependent on Nepali political analysts who for linguistic and other reasons "sieve" the information they pass on, fed appropriately contoured lines from the political leaders they regularly meet and due to the barriers of language, are excluded from the debates and issues that occur in the vernacular press.

In such a context, apart from the immense hubris of those who then presume to know that which is best for the people of Nepal, embassies seek to build "Nepali civil society" and "Nepali citizens" according to their own definitions.

Seira Tamang,
Kathmandu

Let us make no mistake about who is responsible for what happened last Friday night or the reasons why it happened. Granted, the Maoists have succeeded in destabilising the country, wrecking the economy and making the life of ordinary Nepalis a living hell in much of the country. But that is what the Maoists do in their efforts to precipitate "social transformation". It is to be expected.

Likewise, the king, the second element in the equation, recognised that the country faced a constitutional crisis as well as other crises, and felt the time had come to intervene. In young constitutional monarchies kings cannot easily ignore the fact that both the army and the public sees them as the only hope of salvation in the parameters of life. So he too has behaved in accordance with his perceived responsibilities and in a predictable way.

That leaves just one element in the political equation that has not behaved in a way that would normally be expected, or that accorded with its responsibilities. This is the democratically elected politicians and the political parties they represent. They have failed throughout to recognise that their mandate to rile was not God-given, or the result of their sufferings in the Panchayat years, but came direct from the people of Nepal.

They have failed to deliver what the people required of them: effective and inclusive government, economic development and law and order. The arrogance with which they pursued their personal vendettas and exploited their power for personal gain when the country was in deepening crisis added insult to injury. History provides many examples of dictators who fell because the sycophants surrounding them cut them off from their people. Could this be the first time a whole democratically elected system consistently and wilfully ignored its power base? But the politicians ignored the will and the welfare of the people of Nepal at their peril.

No doubt the king will be wise enough to keep his finger on the pulse of the people, and if he does it is hard to imagine that they will exert pressure on him to return to the democratic process in the short term. Let\'s face it, in the light of their recent experience of democracy it simply wouldn't make sense. So the vital question today is, will the political parties, and particularly both Nepali Congresses finally acknowledge their responsibility for the apalling state of the country by embarking upon an uncompromising campaign of self-questioning and internal reform? Or better still will new and untried parties, who base their manifestos on principled and truly representative government, emerge to take their place?

Sadly, for Nepal both scenarios are hard to imagine. The transformation of the democratic political scene and the politicians is surely the most challenging task the king has taken on.

"A foreigner resident in Nepal"