Commenting on the Hindu society's condition of chronic anarchy, historian Arnold Toynbee described it as a disintegrating civilisation compelled to admit alien architects (Turks, Brits) to furnish it with functioning order. The political elite of Indic civilisation had become incompetent and sterile. Toynbee was not writing about Nepal, but seeing how appeals are made here to outsiders to mediate, he might well have.

One symptom of the Nepali dominant minority's sterility is the current debate on what interim governments can or should do. Obsessed with procedures rather than substance, and personalities over vision, the discussion remains at the level of chatter.

A recent storm in a teacup has been over the Working Procedure Regulation under the Lokendra Bahadur Chand cabinet. Branded as 'regression', Brahminical puritans of Marxist and other hues saw it as a major hurdle to join the Deuba cabinet. The excuse was exposed this week as it became clear that an interim prime minister informing the head of state of important measures, and if necessary, even seeking royal advice, is simply good statecraft.

What needs doing in Nepal today is restoring peace, initiating good governance and holding elections so that voters can choose a chief political executive. That task cannot, and should not, be done by the king, the parties or those who believe in doing it from the barrel of a gun. The Chand cabinet's working procedure did not stop it from bringing about a wholly indigenous ceasefire, or the Thapa cabinet from resuming fire when the Maoists failed to negotiate in good faith. Nor did it stop many cabinet ministers from initiating much needed reforms from within the existing framework of laws and regulations.

What the agitating parties, whose last electoral mandates have expired, need to explain to the country is what exactly they hope to do that the Chand and Thapa cabinets could not. Play favouritism with civil servant transfers and politicise the bureaucracy as happened under old procedures? Settle old scores? Harvest resources for coming elections?

In a democracy, parties do not represent the people, voting does. That too for a fixed time with a periodically renewed mandate under campaigned values. With change in trust and behaviour, the legitimacy of an old vote evaporates and a fresh mandate must be sought.

With the last parliament, it happened right at the start with a two-month house deadlock over vote rigging. An all-powerful, all-party committee headed by the prime minister, the speaker as well as the leader of the opposition and chiefs of smaller parties decided to put off the debate. The seeds of illegitimacy were sown then. "We all rigged in our own ways, so let's not make waves," seemed to be the pragmatic solution.

Then, when the political understanding with which the Congress won a majority was undermined by the party's internal unseating of its prime minister (and the further unseating of the usurper by another), voters had a right to be disenchanted with their choices. The final blow came with the majority party dissolving parliament rather than settling its internal differences-for which the king cannot be blamed. Nor can he be for asking the prime minister who gave wrong political advice to accept responsibility and vacate the post.

In addition to their delegitimising shenanigans, the parties' five year mandate has expired. They need a fresh mandate. No party, big or small, underground or Ratna Park-based, can claim to legitimately represent the people anymore. The question is: what to do when the former representatives can't go to the people either for fear of the gun, or of their constituents' wrath over squandered trust?

King Mahendra, in reforming the Panchayat constitution in 1971, said a king is only a trustee, 'janata ko naaso'. Until the Nepali voter can be heard again, it is the king-with or without Article 127-who bears the burden of seeing us through the interregnum. And it is the duty of parties, who believe in the democratic right of the voter to choose the government, to work with the king and the security forces to bring about a situation where the voter can vote.

As Toynbee pointed out, no one is wholly legitimate during this transition except those who accept power with responsibility for its use, misuse or non-use.

Dipak Gyawali was water resources minister in the 2002/03 Chand cabinet.