The most abused force in the present political instability in Nepal is the political parties. Indicted by the King, aid donors, common people, and academicians for their irresponsible behaviour, frequent changes in the government, bad governance and corruption, political leaders and the parties have a responsibility to own up the present mess. Those forces that had been displaced or sidelined by the introduction of multi-party democracy seem to be active in highlighting the defaults of the political parties. However, the achievements of the short-lived democracy – people's participation at the local and districts level, freedom of expression, free media and the development in telecommunications – also seem to have been sidelined. 

For a society that had been bereft of the democratic norms for long and where it was planted rather than grown as a political process, the responsibility of the government, political institutions and mechanisms to work efficiently grew tremendously. It has to be considerate not only to the aspirations of the people but also in dealing with the changes in political and socio-economic hierarchies and their demands in the face of declining traditional institutions. Unfortunately, the governments in Nepal failed in these respects. They sought to cultivate their own narrow political gains, sacrificing ideals and principles, the results of which were  discontentment in society, violence by the Maoists and non-violent protests from the Janjatis (non-Hindu ethnic nationalities), women and Dalits.

Of these protests, the Maoists have created the greatest disturbance. Though successive governments tried to manage the crisis whether by force, persuasion or negotiation, they could not succeed and emergency was declared in 2001. The major blow came to the political crisis when the government of Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba tried to extend emergency for another six months and in turn was not only refused but also dismissed from power on 4 October 2002 by the King for being inefficient and not being able to hold elections.

The stalemate continues. Even though the political parties were united in criticizing the King's action, they had no consensual strategy. Nepali Congress (NC) wanted the King to revive the parliament, the Communist Party of Nepal – United Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML) wanted a government of national consensus and Deuba described the King's move as unconstitutional. Apart from condemnation and agitation against the King's act as a regressive move, the parties have not evolved strategies to deal with the monarchy and traditional forces and on how to bring Maoists on the negotiating table, or to address the aspirations of marginalized communities. Most political parties think that the political environment is not conducive for holding elections by April 2005, as has been indicated by the king. At the same time, they have not suggested an alternative. Changing Prime Ministers of the interim governments is not the solution.

In order to counter the monarchy and in support of democracy, five political parties – NC, CPN (UML), Nepal Workers and Peasants Party, Nepal Sadbhavna Party, and the Rashtriya Prajatantra Party have made a concerted effort to forge a unified force. However, they do not have any common strategy to continue with their agitation. The political leaders distrust each other and carry personal vendetta against one another. The parties are still based on personality rather than on principles or ideology and are bereft of democratic culture within. There are neither indications to suggest that the political leaders have matured and will provide a solution to the present crisis nor any sign that in future, they would perform better. Hence, the people have no motivation to trust and support them.

The leaders seem unable to transform their movement into a people's movement. The lack of enthusiasm amongst the Nepalese is due to the inability of the political parties to project themselves as an alternative to the King and the Maoists. Nevertheless, the people still look towards them for bringing back democracy, peace and stability in the country. Herein lies the contradiction. The Nepalese are surely disappointed by their political leaders but they still believe in democracy and multi-party system. People look towards those who can provide peace and stability. For the time being it is the King and the armed forces. The armed forces have been deployed to counter violence perpetrated by the Maoists.  However, it will lose its relevance if political measures are not taken to bring the insurgents to the negotiation tables.

The political parties have to understand that time has still not slipped out of their hand. The people are not ready to barter for immediate gain of stability and peace with their freedom of choice and expression that can be provided in a multi-party democracy. If the political system for which they struggled for fifty years needs to be preserved, the parties need to share responsibility to strengthen democratic system and show correct direction. They have to demonstrate their own strengths as a political force that can resolve the crisis and forge the country ahead rather than depend on the King to give democracy on a platter or on other countries or agencies to exert pressure on the two other political forces.