Peace is not just the absence of war. Enduring peace will not come just with the cessation of hostilities, it has to touch the mind and spirit of the people with means to ensure social and economic justice. This may be the reason why peace in Nepal has remained so elusive, and with each day that passes the culture of violence takes root in a hitherto peaceful society.

The first prerequisite is to build a climate of trust. The government and the rebels both seem to be weary of prolonged conflict, and the talk of talks is in the air. The challenge is to replace the uncompromising stance with a single-point agenda of peace, and agree to address the contentious issues at the negotiating table. It won't be easy: winning the peace will be even more difficult than trying to win the war.

One fundamental prerequisite that has so far been sidelined is the engagement of the stakeholders in peace building and conflict management and resolution. The people who have the highest stakes, the most to lose, are the Nepali people. It is they who have suffered most from the insurgency and the failures of successive governments since the insurgency began.

Given our excruciating experiment with democracy in the last 14 years, many are averse to involving some of the tarnished political figures in the peace process. Any future negotiation must involve participation of people of high moral stature, which is not the case with some of the senior stalwarts of the democracy movement. It is difficult to entrust the very people who contributed to the birth of the Maoist insurgency by tampering with the democratic process with the present challenge of restoring peace.

Civil society therefore has to take a leading role in peace-building. However, since parliament does not exist, they must turn to elected leaders in the interim government and other political parties in order to give the process legitimacy. Such leaders must have no vested interest in the process, not expect to reap any political rewards and be able to negotiate with moral integrity and skill.

The tragedy is that no one involved in the present political process seem to have learnt from past mistakes, and are bent on repeating them. The street demonstrations of the past year seem to be largely stage-managed events that have little or no popular support. The people have seen through the slogans, and know that it is not about restoring democracy but more about bringing back some of the leaders to power. The reason for the people's apathy and disillusionment is clear, but if they are unwilling to be represented by the people they elected five years ago who can they turn to?

We should not underestimate the evolving role of the people and civil society in nation-building and in the peace processes that we have seen in many other countries in our region, in Africa and Latin America. That conflict management and resolution should only be a state-driven exercise is a fallacy.

Given its moral confusion, political parties must interface with civil society. Not the politicised front organisations and affiliated unions, but genuine grassroots groups, community bodies, professional organisations and truly independent rights groups. With the involvement of civil society in the peace process, it will be easier to comprehensively address the political, social and economic roots of the conflict.

Finding the mechanism to give the people a say in starting a peace process and supporting it is the formula that will make any future agreement more sustainable. We must give up the notion that peace initiatives are the exclusive territory of the belligerent parties to conflict. From experience, we know that such negotiation usually agrees to a cessation of hostilities for political expediency or for breathing space rather than winning genuine, long-term peace.

If the government of Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba is truly sincere about working towards a peaceful resolution of this conflict, to be followed by other moves to restoring democracy on a firmer footing regardless of ongoing party internecine conflicts and the past actions, he should be given a chance to prove his worth. Any success arising from his efforts can be shared by the country and the people.

History will judge us harshly if we forsake action. We are at a defining moment where a resolution of the conflict also provides the chance to address the deep-seated social and economic inequities in our society.

Keshab B Mathema has served as UNICEF representative in China, Sri Lanka and the Philippines.