Conflict resolution is an art. It has to start with the political will for peace on both sides, a willingness to reconcile differences, confidence-building and trust. Only after that can a monitored ceasefire lead to demobilisation and decommissioning of weapons right up to rehabilitation and reconciliation.

Experience of peace processes elsewhere show that these interventions must be carefully sequenced. Disarming a rebel group can be a serious hurdle. If you insist on it too soon, you risk breakdown. If you leave it for too late, future elections may be tainted. You have to get the timing right, and a neutral third party can be of help.

Despite Maoist grandstanding, we can be fairly certain there is political will on the part of the leadership to join peaceful competitive politics. The pace at which this happens is dictated by the internal dynamics within the Maoist party and the comrades want to be careful their rebellion doesn't unravel.

But even if the Maoists hadn't mired this country in 10 years of war, our democracy needed to be fixed to make it more meaningful and inclusive. The peace process is a good opportunity to address these structural issues. However, the fact that the Maoists are joining mainstream politics doesn't automatically guarantee that democracy will be protected or that marginalised groups will have a voice. In fact, recent inflammatory statements by Maoist leaders give reason to doubt their sincerity, commitment to democracy and the protection of fundamental rights.

The peace process and the constituent assembly election is a project that aims at more equitable power-sharing. It seeks to change 237 years of status quo and allow a mechanism for Nepalis who were left out of decision-making a future share in it. The present haggling is about who is to decide on this mechanism and how.
Now that we've come this far there are some self-evident truths:

. a state can't have two rival armies
. the paramilitary group needs to be disbanded within an agreed timeframe
. a caretaker government can't include a party that still espouses violence
. a hardline split within the rebel movement has to be prevented
. elections can't be held without first deommissioning an armed group's weapons

So far, our transition from conflict to ceasefire to a new constitution has happened relatively smoothly. But the road ahead is treacherous because post-conflict elections, if they aren't properly handled, can re-ignite violence. Worse, polarised campaigning for such polls can turn a comparatively tame class-based struggle into a much more vicious ethnic or separatist conflict.