Setting the scene

Nepal’s political history has always been unstable. The authoritarian Shah dynasty ruled over Nepal for 240 years from 1768 to 2008. Between 1846 and 1951 Nepal was dominated by the Rana family who institutionalised and controlled oligarchic rule in the country. In 1951 the Shah dynasty again regained power with the support of a number of political parties. A period of democracy followed but was again undermined by the Shah dynasty in 1960, which augured in the Panchayat era (Khadka, 1993). This regime, described as ‘guided democracy’, in reality concentrated power with the monarchy. Three decades later – in 1990 – the popular ‘People’s Movement 1’ restored multi-party democracy in the country. Despite the hope of the general public that the 1990 democratic restoration in Nepal would usher in an era of improved governance and social inclusion, none of the post-1990 incoming governments met the expectations of the people for social change (Lama, 2009). The main victims of this failure have been the majority Nepali population, but particularly disadvantaged women, the poor, the vulnerable and the marginalised given the dominance of uppercaste men. Such dominance applied not only to state institutions but also to civil society. Any sense of meaningful participation by people who were from poor, vulnerable and socially excluded communities in the state and non-state institutions was frustrated by the elite capture and exercise of power. Equally, participatory democracy for social change remained confined to the realm of rhetoric.

As a result of this situation, in 1996 the Maoist Party initiated the armed conflict that they named ‘the people’s war’ by presenting a 40-point demand that included the call for Nepal to be reconstituted as a republic. The origins of the Communist Party of Nepal (CPN) date back to 1949, with the movement led by the CPN (Maoist) emerging in the late 1960s. Various different tendencies and factions were established and became active over the years. Some of these differences focused on whether an armed struggle strategy should be adopted versus those who advocated a more gradualist approach to the idea of revolution. In March 1995 the party named the CPN (Maoist) formally adopted the doctrine of armed struggle.