The current crisis is a clear sign of growing polarisation between the Maoists, who emerged as the strongest single political party in elections a year ago, and other political forces in Nepal.

Even the Maoists’ main coalition partner, the centre-left United Marxist-Leninists (UML), withdrew its support to the government over the sacking of the army chief, prompting Prime Minister Prachanda to announce his resignation.

Some observers blame the president, from the opposition Nepali Congress Party, for the confusion. “The current constitution has made the post of the president a ceremonial one, not executive,” explains K.B. Rokaya, a human rights activist who supports the integration of the Maoists into the political mainstream.

“The prime minister has the executive power! And so by intervening directly, and by bypassing the elected government, the president crossed the limits of his office… so there are two chiefs of army right now, this is a very serious thing that has happened.”

Ambiguity because of interim nature of constitution

But others disagree. Nepal only has an interim constitution and the powers of the new office of president that replaced the monarch just under a year ago are not yet fully defined.

This tussle over who can sack the army chief took place in a grey area, explains political commentator Yuvraj Ghimire. “It’s a very vague thing constitutionally because the president is the supreme commander of the army who also appoints the army chief on the recommendation of the council of ministers.”

“But here the prime minister, who heads a coalition government on the understanding that any major decision will have to be taken in consensus, went against the assurance he had given to the president and other partners in the cabinet that he would not take a decision on sacking the army chief without their approval.”

“So there was a breach of faith and breach of assurance, and the political parties including those who were in the coalition government, approached the president to intervene in the matter.”

Army chief refused to accept civilian authority

If, and how, 19,000 former Maoist guerrilla fighters currently living in camps should be induced into the army has long been a major political controversy. But a special committee that was appointed to resolve it has reportedly made substantial progress.

The army chief was sacked over a more fundamental issue, argues K. B. Rokaya: Because he refused to accept the authority of the civilian government.

“The military went ahead with recruiting 3,000 new army personnel. The government had asked the military to stop recruiting. But the army went ahead and recruited. And the defence minister and the military chief were not on good terms.”

Maoists are extremely suspicious

Ever since coming to power, the Maoists have been extremely suspicious of any attempts to obstruct their government. In his resignation speech, Prime Minister Prachanda hinted at different domestic and foreign forces working against him.

Santosh Poudel, a journalist with the Maoist party-affiliated newspaper “Janadisha Daily”, explains: “Colonial forces means American and Indian forces. And in Nepal, internal forces such as Nepali Congress and UML also: They prevent them from taking their decisions and making good governance!”

With distrust in abundance, governing Nepal and bringing the peace process to an end with the writing of a new constitution seems to be a steep uphill task right now.