Paper short abstract:

This paper proposes and argues that Nepal is struggling to develop a political model on its own reflective social and cultural repertoires rather than normative one. The argument, primarily, is derived analyzing two Constituent Assembly elections' manifestos of the major political parties of Nepal.

Paper long abstract:

"Form of federalism" and "Model of government" emerged as highly contentious issues while drafting a new constitution, thus, first Constituent Assembly (CA) of Nepal was dissolved on May 27, 2012. Primarily, political parties were divided into following notions first, what are identities? Second, what is an inclusive state? &, Third, how to develop an inclusive state? Therefore, apparently, the II-CA was a referendum on these issues. Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist (UCPN (Maoist))) including "identity ideology" parties promised for "federalism with identity and rights-to-self-determination". On the other hand, Nepali Congress (NC), Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML)), Ratriya Prajantra Party (RPP), and other political parties campaigned for "federalism with multi-identity, respect for diversity, and communal harmony". I & II-CA elections remarkably shifted: first, identity issues were dominant over the traditional form of polity in the I-CA election but reversed mandate came out in the II-CA election. NC emerged as first party and Maoist pushed down in third one with 12.7 and 14.3 percent less votes in first-past-the-post (FPTP) and proportional representative (PR) results respectively in the II-CA election. NC, UML and RPP have secured near about two-third-majority in the II-CA. Second, political parties, intellectuals, academicians are grappling to delineate loktantra in relation with these peoples' directives. Analyzing major parties' CA elections' manifestos and election results, the paper argues that, first, Nepali loktantra is evolving within the ontology of its social repertoires and, second, identity issues can't be overlooked, however, "identity ideology" wouldn't substitute for the political ideology.