When Maoists controlled about 80 per cent of Nepal, they subjected many rural Nepalese to forcible conscription as fighters, and made them pay 'taxes' or face violent reprisals.

The democratic parties that have engaged in parliamentary politics have a history of corruption and endemic infighting. Indeed, it was their incompetence that helped induce the moves by King Gyanendra to establish autocratic rule.

But democracy was restored by the king when he appointed former prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala to head a new government. Mr Koirala was nominated by a coalition of seven main political parties that instigated anti-monarchy protests. Thus, Nepal's Parliament reopened after being dissolved in 2002 by the king.

Initially, Nepalis were unmoved by these steps, since their democratically elected leaders were incompetent and corrupt. And it was widely accepted that firm action was needed to curb Maoist violence.

A dispassionate assessment of this movement away from autocracy towards democracy implies that it deserves a mere two cheers, if that. As it is, the democratic institutions are still not functioning well. The democratic political elite is widely distrusted, and given to endless infighting and corruption.

Nepalese democracy was restored in 1991 after an absence of over 30 years, but the political system has never addressed the overall interests of most citizens. Once they form a government, political leaders tend to forget all promises they made to the citizens. This makes it unlikely that democracy can serve as a guarantor or provider of peace and prosperity.

For his part, Mr Koirala is on record as stating that he heeds the voice of the people. Such claims are troubling, given that history is littered with leaders claiming to know what is in the best interests of their fellow citizens. Those emboldened by such confidence too often lapse into autocratic or idiosyncratic behaviour.

This is a real danger, and can be clearly seen in the contents of a pact made by the Maoist-communist insurgents and the parliamentary parties in their quest to take power. A letter of understanding signed by the seven parliamentary parties and the Communist Party of Nepal agreed to an ambiguous concept of 'absolute democracy'.

Absolute democracy, as operated by the one-party regimes in mainland China and North Korea, involves a dictatorship of the proletariat. Decisions about what is best for the country are left to a small elite made up of members of the ruling party.

The letter of understanding also included another ambiguous phrase - committing all parties to use 'agitation' to achieve absolute democracy. It is clear that this was little more than a cover for the tendencies for violence seen in street demonstrations and Maoist actions in the countryside.

Neither royalists, Maoists nor parliamentarians have shown much concern for the misery that Nepalis have suffered from their political actions.

Perhaps the four-year recess has made Nepali legislators more competent and less venal. But there is no way to hold accountable any of those that caused so much damage and disruption, if things go the same way as they have in the past.

Christopher Lingle is senior fellow at the Centre for Civil Society in New Delhi