INTERNATIONAL POLICY ANALYSIS Elections and Conflict in Nepal Country Analysis DEV RAJ DAHAL August 2010 n The Constituent Assembly(CA) election in Nepal on April 10, 2008 increased the re­presentation of Nepal’s social diversity in political power, reduced structural conflict, legitimized the secular, federal democratic republic and sought a peaceful transfor­mation of Nepalese society. It also marked the rise of regional parties in Tarai and the advent of the Unified Communist Party of Nepal(Maoist) as the dominant party, but short of the majority needed to form a government. n After the election a shift from consensus to conflict and the struggle for government power produced a protracted deadlock. The failure to resolve many contentious issues, such as the integration of Maoist combatants, the form of governance, fe­deralism, judicial autonomy, self-determination and prior use rights has contributed negatively to the promulgation of a new constitution in time, structural reforms and post-conflict peacebuilding. The reorganization of group boundaries, ethnicity and subsidiary identity factors have eroded state capacity to achieve governance goals, abolish the patronage system and shore up the national heritage of tolerance. n The proliferation of armed groups and the poor state of law and order represent cul­tural and institutional challenges to reshape civic culture through effective action by the election commission, the media and civil society. Rights-based social movements representing youth, women, ethnic and other groups, are pushing for the democra­tization of the state and political parties. Yet, their institutionalized group rights also contest national identity and individual rights. n The international community treats Nepal as a fragile state. It supported Nepal’s CA election and called it free and fair, but its monitoring of the post-election constituti­onal and political process has been weak. Geopolitical interests enmeshed in many of the contentious issues, generate distrust among national and international actors, which is often counterproductive for collaborative action for the sake of Nepal’s stable and peaceful democratic future.