9 Stability in Transition: Development perspectives and local politics in Nepal James Sharrock Introduction This article is about ways of looking at local politics in Nepal after the Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 2006. 1 The first part of my paper draws on ideas developed in Sudan, Afghanistan and the DR Congo to critique thinking by development actors about ‘post-conflict’ countries. I first suggest that development actors and others wishing to intervene in Nepal’s local political environment should not concentrate solely on what they think local politics lacks, according to ideal frameworks of the state. Instead, I highlight different ways of viewing the state and local politics in developing and post-conflict countries, focusing particularly on theories that seek to better understand local informal political realities. I then use brief case studies to illustrate examples of local level transitional politics in Nepal. After this I highlight some possible benefits to development actors of cultivating such an understanding of local politics. This will be followed by a suggestion of how to carry out such an analysis. I conclude that development actors need not resign themselves to an acceptance of the reality of politics; nor should they only ask ‘what is missing?’ when looking at local politics and the Nepali state. Instead, I suggest that a realistic and more effective form of analysis would integrate detailed studies of the local political reality with continuing and necessary long- term goals to reform practices such as corruption and patronage. In particular, this paper argues that an understanding of the impact of political practices can assist interventions in identifying political prac- tices which are effective and supported locally and those that are not. The alternative to this is a continued (and often wilful) ignorance of the complex reality of local Nepali politics. Although the focus of the paper is on critiquing forms of analysis, I also explore some of the difficulties 1 The views expressed are solely those of the author and do not represent the views of the United Nations, The Carter Center or the UK Government’s Department for International Development (DFID). European Bulletin of Himalayan Research 42: 9-38 (2013)