editIt is well recognized that our monopolists of political organizations are so wary of their unsolicited agenda for republicanism, secularism and federalism that they purposely kept these away from public endorsement but seek instead to legitimize them on the strength of the votes they secured in the constituent assemblies alone. Abject constitutionalism thus denies the monopoly the legitimacy of their actions the reaction to which they must forcibly slip to the sidelines and their prowess in the ‘money, muscle and media’ front successfully keeps growing disenchantment and dissent firmly under lids since they do hold the monopoly of organizations. One sector that has proved a persistent irritant is the Tarai movement—the reason being that they are offshoots of their own organizations and merely chose to carry their dictated agenda to logical conclusions under their own leadership. Another potent sector that could have been an irritant to the monopoly, the so called constitutional monarchists of yore, has however failed outright in their performance and the strategy of our monopolists has succeeded much on this front. But, that is politics. In actual fact, the most confusing role of Nepal’s ‘rajabadis’ has failed both the ‘raja’ and the ‘rajya’. Take for example events in the last six months in the RPP camp. There was political logic in the unification of the RPP and the RPP-N. The RPP-N actively sought votes for the constitutional monarchy, Hindu identity and local self government and secured more votes and constituent assembly seats than its republican version. But, within two months of the unification, the party splintered under Dr. Prakash Chandra Lohani who was claimant to the leadership troika in the RPP (he, along with Pashupati Shumsher and Lokendra Chand). Kamal Thapa’s agenda in the RPP-N was thought to have been adopted by the newly united RPP but Lohani’s splinter cast aspersions at whether the agenda was mere adornment for participation or to be pursued for real. On the other hand, the past months have seen no difference between the mother party and that of Lohani’s in performance except for the fact that the splinter is also known to have actively contributed to the mother party’s poor performance in two phases of local elections just concluded. On the other hand, the splinter’s allegation of Kamal Thapa not being sincere to his agenda was became public with supposed Kamal Thapa sources siting disagreements between him and the king on the issue of votes in the amendments sought by government in the constitution. And now we have a new configuration—yet another splinter between the united RPP led by Kamal Thapa and another, an RPP-Democratic led by Pashupati Shumsher. Of course, the new splinter is set to be challenged legally in terms of numbers and names in the central committee and the legislature. This regardless, we are bound to say that a single RPP set on a clear agenda is better politics than three RPPs—RPP (Democratic), RPP (Nationalist) and RPP (United). This is especially so when the divisions center around mere personalities and party positions and the differences for the division in terms of agenda are grey at best. If these divisions bring at least one such party into the fold of agenda driven politics there is meaning. Or, else, sadly, this is yet another ruse to dilute and divide a section of politics that must sooner than later conclude that their agenda cannot be effectively pursued in the current desperation.