Despite the countrywide jubilationduring the past few weekson the international frontfrom the record success of the events revolving around the SAARC Summit, on the current national political, and more specifically on the constitution-making front,the Nepalesecitizens genuinely deserve some clarification. Indeed, much of the clamor about the political actors’ breaching of agreements, the rapid splintering of parties, the tussles over ideological phasing-outs, the tactical moves followed by changes in priorities, theflip-flopping of leaderships intheir bottomlines, the demagogueries of game-change followed by shift of strategy, or the threats of a return to paleontological politics, contrary to the perception of many,do not necessarily convey any officially orchestrated stand, but merely reflect the spontaneity of the existential outcry of stakeholders resulting from the problems of past commitmentsseriously lacking in credibility. The current political situation is, without doubt,complex, but also somewhat sorry andfrightening.It is as if the citizens are in an underground train stuck between two stations, not knowing which direction it will move and when it will come out.

Indeed, for any commitment to be considered credible, it has to have been methodically and independently made and vetted following internal consultations and processes, be feasible and realistic, and most importantly,be clear and precise. The calculated ambiguities, inserted in numerous deeds and instruments for purposes of mostly camouflaging evasiveness ifnotlack of foresight due also to the miscomprehension of the citizen’s views and passivity,although useful for a short term, will not be helpful long-term.

Clearly,any pact amongst elites only, although justifiable by some stretch of imagination, is no constitution. Similarly, the theatrics of ignorance aimed at hurtingfellow citizensthrough myriad confusion, or the abundant display of know-all arrogance to impress through unrelated proposals isno less unproductive.Certainly, the mistake of history is the culprit.Indeed, the parties, severallyand hastily,had been to the second round of polls as bitter enemies with competing vision, yet leaving important and crucial matters exclusively to party leaders, which act nowseems to be at the verge of proving fatal.Moreover, in that midst,those romanticizing the future have not fully and clearly prepared for it, and those de-romanticizing the past, have not clearly explained it. The passive (impartial) spectator, thus, can only acknowledge in the voice of humility that the tragicomic needs no further elaboration.

That some moralists now want to govern by following a not-so-clear process and some math geniuses wish to indulge in the numbers gameis understandable in a world of political strategy; that some pessimists want to caution with reservation by predicting the outcome to fail and some eternal day-dreamers wish to guarantee success is logical in a sophist’s world of confusion; that some public orators continue to find topics for their talk-and-distort method is palatable in amultiethnic, multilingual, and multi-interestworld; and that some neutralists refraining totally from touching the topics of politics not due to tardiness in understanding it but due to lassitude vis-à-vis the regularly broken promises by those who lead is also acceptable in a laissez-faireorleave-and-let-be world.

But those who lead us are also human beings with their own worldly limitations and self-love, and, as humans, are entitled to pardon for their misdeeds, if any. An apathetic society would, indeed,onlysucceedin further entrenching dictatorship. It is, therefore, essential that political parties,regardless of whether they are from the left, the right or the center, endeavor to secure the trust of thepublic at large along with their active participation. What appears to be needed from them, thus, is an interdisciplinarity in approach and multi-functionality in coverage, to deal with the plethora of pending issues, unfolding on a regular, not only daily but also hourly, basis. The fate of the sovereign nation needs managing with more care and agility.

Indeed, it is still not too late to bear in mind that the spirit of reasonableness, virtuousness and good faith from all is not totally extinct, that ample tools can still be availed for creating a balance in the landscape of multi-polarity, that benevolence and compassion continue to be adored, that the metaphor ‘growing a lotus in the midst of muddied water’remainsvalid, that most political parties still inspire public confidence, and most importantly, that equipoise and balance have to be part and parcel of their decision-making mindset. But reengaging with the above ideals in mind, to ensure change,requires a renewed set of credible commitments on the part of all concerned. Andchange, to be easilytraceable and implementable, hastobe incremental andcumulative, although setting areal minimum standard at the outset will not be unwarranted!