With all the political posturing, haggling and grandstanding going on these days, it is easy to lose sight of the future. The partisan interests of the competing powers are hopelessly tangled.

But it wouldn't be an over-simplification to say that the bottom line is how much power the king should have. And since the king derives some of his supremacy from control over the Royal Nepali Army, that is the crux of the issue. The 'constituent assembly' demand is just a code word for overhauling this status quo even though none of those who seek it seem clear about what kind of assembly it should be and how to cobble one together. What can such a body do that can't be achieved by reworking the existing constitution?

Civil society is understandably enthusiastic about a constituent assembly because it sees that as a way to get the Maoists to the negotiating table. Sections of the Girija Congress and the splinter left in the anti-'regression' agitation are veering towards it. The Maoists are waging a 'people's war' and Baburam Bhattarai says he'll settle for a constituent assembly for now.

It is clear that this isn't a fight for a share of the pie. All three sides want the whole pie. That is not the way a solution can be found.

It would be foolish to assume that the king and the army are going to voluntarily relinquish their traditional dominance over the polity. But it does look like the longer they resist reform, the more intractable this crisis will be. The only sensible way is for the political parties and the palace to coexist and pave the way for peace, elections and constitutional reform. There is a way to convince the Maoists to join the head table. Call it a constituent assembly or whatever.

The tool kit is here. We know how to use it. Let's fix it.