King Gyanendra's concession to reconvene Nepal's Parliament ended one crisis but led to another critical controversy: whether the work of reconstituting the state should lie with Parliament or a constituent assembly.
Stating the issue that way might make it sound as if Nepal's problem is constitutional. But, in fact, at the root of its troubles are a number of fundamental social and political problems.
The debate - between those who favour reconvening Parliament versus the backers of a constituent assembly - reflects the class, caste and ethnic divides that have plagued the country for years. In 1990, through popular struggles similar to those of today, Nepal secured a democratic constitution based on multiparty democracy. Although Nepalese political parties drew support from different regions and social groups, they were dominated by upper-caste Hindus, and came principally from the major Nepali-speaking communities.
The revolutionary social impulses that propelled the change from monarchy to democracy were reflected in several provisions of the constitution. But they were never carried through in practice. The political system that developed under the constitution excluded communities that did not speak Nepali, lower-caste Hindus and indigenous minorities. This exclusion was aggravated by party politics.
Parties were constantly squabbling, obsessed with gaining access to power. Confidence votes were frequent, making governments unstable. This gave the monarchy greater leverage over the state than normal in a parliamentary system. Few parties or governments paid any attention to the social-reform agenda.
It was in these circumstances that the Maoist rebellion arose and quickly won popular support - some of which was later lost as Maoists used oppressive measures against the very people they claimed to speak for. The legitimacy of the monarchy and political parties was being severely challenged. And people in lower castes or minority groups became increasingly aware that, in the 1990 constitution, they had been deprived of the promises wrested by the social struggles of the 1980s.