Constitutional crisis in Nepal

Despite several rounds of voting Nepal is unable to elect a prime minister. This is obviously because of the fact that no individual is in a position to get the requisite majority.

This is indicative of the fact that it is not possible to make decisions unanimously or even by substantial majority in most cases. The best course is to arrive at a decision by accepting whatever decision is given by majority- even if this is razor thin. A decision by small majority is better than no decision. The alternative is anarchy and disorder.

Any comments?