Historically when we've had peace, we've not had democracy and vice versa. Now, we Nepalis have an historic opportunity to have both.

Last year's peace accord lays the foundation for a new beginning. The unity of the political parties, rebels, civil society, and professional organisations showed what a unity of purpose and vision can achieve. But are we once more squandering this hardwon freedom?

Recognising the contribution made by civil society, the eight parties agreed to set aside 48 seats for them but in the end distributed it among cronies. A committee was formed for the drafting of the interim constitution and with six members representing four major parties, but it had no women, dalit or janajati members until protests by activists. The same story for the Peace Negotiation Committee and the Rayamajhi Commission.

The status quo is so entrenched that some politicians just don't see how serious the exclusion still is. Political parties are the vanguard of peace and democracy, but if the parties themselves are undemocratic how can they ever take us there? Our parties have always been better at struggling for democracy than making it deliver development. The parties are supposed to believe in the rule of law, but they are now competing with the YCL to establish youth leagues.

The peace process is also threatened by excluded groups with demands that escalate from equality, to autonomy to secession. The present band-aid approach of negotiations just won't do, there has to be a genuine effort to address root causes and grievances.

We have a chance to restructure the state through the enactment of a new constitution via an elected assembly. Constitutionalism implies a balance between the power of the government and the rights of individual. But what power has been given to the people so far?

Ownership of the peace process is important, but who owns the process: the parties or the people? Do the parties genuinely reflect the peoples' desires especially given their expired mandates since the last elections in 1999?

Can democracy be established with the restructuring of the state alone, or do we need to restructure our values and delivery? How can we expect figures who have held on to power for decades within their parties to devolve power to a federated state structure?

Rayamajhi Commission's findings have been published but the home minister says action has already been taken against the guilty and there is no need to make them public. The insincerity in setting up a truth commission, the inability to appoint a head to the Human Rights Commission, even the Commission on Women is languishing.

To be sure, we have seen the passage of progressive legislations like the Gender Equality Amendment Act, the law on citizenship rights and the trafficking law. But it comes back to the same issue: lack of due diligence in enforcing those laws.

For the first time in the history of Nepal, the people will have a chance to craft their own constitution. It is not a flawless process. It will be the people's representatives from the political parties who will be making the decisions after being elected through a mixed proportional system. A certain number of excluded groups will be included in the closed lists of the parties, but it will still be the parties who will choose those members, not the people directly.

The election law also gives discretionary power to the party for the use of ten percent of their candidacy. And history has witnessed parties never go beyond minimum when it comes to marginalised groups. Having a constitutional provision for minimum 33 percent candidacy for women means that will be the cap. Still, we need to explore participation within that limited scope.

Political parties play a key role in transforming democratic values into living reality and establish peace, but due to lack of clarity, commitment, and short term vested interest there is a crisis of uncertainty and suspicion about the election itself.

Sapana Pradhan Malla is advocate and president of the Forum for Women, Law, and Development.