Nepalis celebrated the festival of lights this week with revelry and 24-hour power, trying not to dwell on the winter of discontent and uncertainty looming ahead.

The prime minister's directives to keep power cuts to 12 hours will be impossible to fulfil, inflation of basic food items has hit families nationwide, foreign investors are fleeing, there are no new jobs. And to add to the public's misery, the opposition has decided to take to the streets to oust the prime minister.

Last week, the Baburam Bhattarai said, "We are all in the same boat, facing the storm." In a normal society, this should have galvanised all sections to work towards keeping it afloat, instead the leaders are rocking the boat to overthrow each other.

The people may have lost interest in the political bickering, but they will have to suffer the consequences anyway because it is a time-honoured tradition in Nepali politics that the people are always punished for the inability of our leaders to get along.

In the past, people fought the state with a purpose and a mandate. These were spontaneous movements of the suppressed against the oppressors. Autocratic regimes were overthrown and power was handed to the political parties to lead the nation through democratic transition.

Now, those preparing for a 'showdown' on the streets seem to have mistaken partisan interests for people's aspirations, and taken the public for granted. They forget that politics is about responding to public opinion, and addressing issues that the people are preoccupied with. And at the moment, they are almost exclusively economic issues.

Unless the opposition has a viable plan for economic upturn, to spur investment, control inflation and corruption, its agitation will have no rationale and no backing on the streets.

There are sufficient grounds to question Bhattarai's caretaker government, especially for its tolerance of corruption and for coddling war criminals. But the opposition was no less irresponsible when it was in power. With the same tainted and aged personalities at the helm, the NC especially hasn't been able to fire up the public's support for its agenda.

The dissolution of the CA and failure to draft the constitution are blots on Nepal's democracy for which all parties share the blame. They may like to point fingers, but people don't have any overwhelming favourites.

Movements are successful when the larger polity is against a system, and when other avenues for its removal have been exhausted. Nepal's democratic transition, although sluggish, has moved in the right direction. People may have become tired of the long drawn statute-drafting process, but the mandate for an inclusive federal Nepal remains valid because it was not a single party agenda or something that was cooked up inside the CA, nor was it donor-driven.

There are just too many actors trying to lead, seek prominence, and direct Nepal's complex transition. Barring the monarchists and a fringe section of anarchists, the parties agree on the fundamentals of the new constitution, but disagree on the details.

Although CA reinstatement would have been preferable to the parties in power, there are sufficient incentives for all the parties to go for fresh elections. Who gets to lead the electoral government does matter, and the NC has a valid claim since its past performance in holding elections has been credible. But the Maoists, Madhesis, and the Janjatis would understandably feel sceptical about it, especially because the president also has a NC background.

So while the opposition has all the luxury to blame the government for being unable to hold elections on time, it must admit that it has not been constructive in its own efforts to that end. No matter who leads the electoral government, the interim constitution has doomed the parties to cooperate with each other for now. Legal pundits may have reservations, but there are sufficient provisions in the constitution to resolve the deadlock and move ahead by holding new elections.

For that, the incentive to cooperate has to outweigh the temptation for street confrontation.