If there were freedom of expression in Nepal, many of us would be saying ?I told you so? to the international community. For years, diplomats and aid industrialists claimed that King Gyanendra would not attempt a military coup. Now that he has, they appear shocked. They needn?t be. Nepalis had seen this coming for years. Just as they had foreseen its possible solutions. There are, in this regard, two options.

One is a short-term solution, to restore democracy (such as it was) under the 1990 constitution. This is the lesser solution by many counts, primarily because the king had overstepped the bounds of the constitution back in October 2002, when he dismissed an elected government and appointed his own council of ministers.

He has ruled from the shadows since then. And though he had invoked Article 127 of the 1990 constitution to justify this, many constitutional experts have argued that the king?s emergency powers only allow for short-term interventions. It does not allow him to rule for years, as he has done, and as he has now announced he will do for three years (or at least 100 days) yet.

A simple restoration of democracy merely means returning to this constitutionally questionable ?Rule by Article 127?. It may reverse the February 1 coup, but it will not resolve the problems that preceded it, or the conditions that facilitated it. The earlier political gridlock between the palace-military complex, the democratic political parties and the Maoist insurgents must be cleared. This is why it is better to force a negotiation between these three powers and make them settle for peace and democracy.

This would mean scrapping the 1990 constitution altogether and drafting a new national charter. This is not a radical suggestion. Many Nepalis have maintained, since its drafting, that the 1990 constitution is flawed in several ways, not least in granting the king emergency powers and placing the military under an ineffectual three-person defence council. Nepal?s indigenous nationalities have long opposed its definition of Nepal as a Hindu kingdom. And, as recent events have shown, the constitution?s two so-called pillars ? constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy ? are easily rubbished, as are its guarantees of fundamental rights.

A new constitution is, of course, precisely what the Maoists have demanded since breaking away from the parliamentary process and launching their insurgency in 1996. Maintaining that Nepal?s past constitutions have always given too much power to the palace-military complex, they have asked that a new constitution be formed via an inclusive, open constituent assembly.

The Maoists? savage and dictatorial methods are abhorrent. Their basic demands are not. In fact, the Nepali Congress Party and the parties of the democratic left have, since the Forties, demanded a constituent assembly ? and had also given up this demand upon various opportunities to share power with the palace-military complex. The Maoists have simply co-opted these demands and claimed them as their own.

Since the coup of February 1, the Maoists have categorically refused to negotiate with the palace-military complex. They have also enforced a widely successful blockade, showing off their continued ability to paralyze governance. And they undoubtedly feel avenged: for unlike the left and liberal political parties, they had foreseen that the palace-military complex would use, then discard, democracy, ultimately propping itself up as an absolute power.

The Maoists have now invited the left and liberal parties to join hands with them in overthrowing their common enemy. The thought that these parties might accept their invitation is giving many the jitters. This, because they would be the weaker of the two partners. Since 1990, the parties have been notoriously unable to govern either themselves or the country. The Maoists are far more disciplined (and, let us not forget, armed).

Yet the left and liberal parties have something that the Maoists lack, and sorely need: legitimacy. The world ? which supplies over 60 per cent of Nepal?s national budget, and which supports the private sector through tourism, commerce and industry ? would simply not stand for a Maoist takeover.

The left and liberal parties can use to their advantage the fact that they, and they alone, are legitimate claimants to the right to govern Nepal. If they are to negotiate the Maoists into an equal partnership, they must also reform themselves, urgently. They must throw up a credible new leadership, and fast.

There have been several attempts to provide new leadership. In the past few years, the left and liberal student unions have called for a constituent assembly, defying the more timid parties. The women and Dalit cadre and that from the indigenous nationalities have increasingly challenged the male elite caste?s stranglehold over their parties. There is a progressive-minded party cadre waiting in the wings. Now is the time for them to step forward.

Given the serious breakdown of trust between the three political forces ? and the very high stakes involved ? international mediation may be required to achieve all this. Here India must be very careful. Because of Nepali sensitivities, there is no role at all for unilateral intervention by India. However, complete disengagement will only allow the present crisis to deepen.

As in Sri Lanka, third party mediation appears to be the only way forward now, led by the United Nations, the European Union or even organizations such as the Carter Centre.

In many ways, the palace-military coup of February 1 is a clarifying event. It has provided an opportunity for the world to understand Nepal?s political travails clearly, and to support ways to attain a lasting solution.