The new government that came into its present shape after the general election held on November 20, 2022, is the culmination of a seven-party alliance of divergent ideological leanings, and political backgrounds since neither party obtained a clear majority required to form a government under a single party’s leadership. Pushpa Kamal Dahal, the chairman of the Nepal Communist Party (Maoist Center) under whose leadership the present government is formed is a splinter group of the Nepal Communist Party.
Before its split, the two communist parties led by KP Oli and Prachanda were merged into one after the 2074 election. The parties broke into three after the then Premier Oli dissolved the House of Representatives not only once but twice. The political events unfolded dramatically after the Supreme Court’s verdict, which allowed the president of Nepali Congress Sher Bahadur Deuba to form the government with the support of the NCP splinter groups and some other fringe parties, later they allied. The formation of an alliance was the result of NCP’s breakages and the House dissolution and the call for a mid-term election, an untimely political move called by NCP supremo KP Sharman Oli.
Contemporary Nepali politics is inspired by antagonism, retaliation, egoism, and greed for power. A case that sits fit into it is the expression of KP Sharma Oli, Chairman of the CPN (UML) who was hell-bent to break the five-party alliance led by the Nepali Congress at any cost by hook or crook, in which he became a success. Lately, crossing all the boundaries of political values and principles, ascendancy to the power of the government has become only the valid and sought-after norm and political culture of Nepal.
But now, reverting to the existing position, after the periodic election held in November, Maoist Center Chairman Prachanda broke the five-party alliance and joined hands with another seven-party alliance under the leadership of KP Sharman Oli, who offered him the premiership of the government. It was an act of retaliation against the Nepali Congress for its previous political move against KP Sharma Oli. Actually, it is a common characteristic of extremism whether that comes from the right or left, if anything goes against their perceived will or agenda, they prefer to punish, overstep and bend the rival with force to impose their will which reminds Trumpism and Putinism.
Strangely, contrary to the general perception, when the Prime Minister asked the House of Representatives for a vote of trust in his leadership, the largest party in the House the Nepali Congress voted in favor of the government, a political move that made political analysts confused about the intention whether it has any conceived strategic objectives. Whatever may be the reasons behind it, this unexpected move of the major opposition has been regarded as unethical and unprincipled as the parliamentary system demands a strong opposition to account for the government. With this action of the largest party, the House is practically without strong opposition. According to the Regulation on the Perks and Facilities of the Members of the House of Representatives, 2073, to become a major opposition in the House, ten percent of the total seats of the House of Representatives is an obligatory requirement, which after the overwhelming support in the trust motion with the support of NC, the House, legally, whether the two parties with single seats are in the opposition, lacks a principle opposition. In this case, the government is neither explicitly a consensus national government nor the majority one.
While the United States of America and India want to contain China having its powerful influence in the periphery including Nepal, the formation of a China-favored government in Nepal has increased the headache of both the USA and India.
The contradiction is visibly clear in the present government of seven party alliance. It is a strange bedfellow with different objectives fomenting together- from ultra-rightists, reformists, ultra-leftists, socialists, and conservatives as well as federalists, non-federalists, secularists, and non-secularist- sitting together in a living-in relationship. A mosaic of colors, primary and mixed-up is vividly present in the governance. The RPP demands the reinstatement of constitutional monarchy and declaration of a Hindu nation, whereas other parties who label themselves as progressive prefer to stick to secularism. The RPP always blames the socialist and communist parties for getting blessings from evangelical pastures and allowing free proselytization in the country. The Rastriya Swantrantra Party is against the federalism of the present shape. All the partners have their reservations and conditions with the government. In such a situation, it is a herculean task with challenges before the government to maintain balance and run the governance.
Throughout the history of Nepal, from the time of unification dynastic rulings of the kings or Rana oligarchy until its parting in 1950 by the people’s movement, and thereafter under different disguise, except for a short stint of democratic governance, remained under the unitary and controlled regime until 1990 AD. Even after the reinstatement of democracy in 1990 and the proclamation of a federal republican democratic state in 2008, Nepal has undergone several trials and tests but most of the time ruled by either far-rightists or leftists. The moderate has the least to do with governance. The alliance of RPP, a party of royalists, with the ultra-leftists and leftists, is yet another ploy to deceive the people. Such an unholy alliance would contribute to the instability of the nation rather than its perceived development and prosperity.
The question arises whether the love affair between these seven distinct and diverse characters is a matter of convenience or compulsion dictated by domestic requirements or geopolitical competition. With the contradiction in place, the country may be heading towards facing the grave consequences of geo-political rivalry. How can they feel cosiness partnering with the odd friends? This kind of love affair is more eye-soring than eye-catching.
Nepal’s strategic location between the two giant neighbors and their ever-increasing geopolitical influence over the region and beyond, want to have their comfortable government in Nepal. The geopolitical rivalry was seen during the passage of the MCC compact from the parliament and at the time of the rejection of SPP. While the United States of America and India want to contain China having its powerful influence in the periphery including Nepal, the formation of a China-favored government in Nepal has increased the headache of both the USA and India. Global powers’ interests in the internal affairs of Nepal would probably stir Nepali politics for some time creating instability and disturbances in concentrating its attention on fulfilling the other aspects of governance as such developmental needs.
The prevalence of neo-conservatives or ultra-leftists at the helm of governance has become a matter of concern in present-day politics. Unfortunately, these forces have a strong presence in Nepal. In Nepal, where Buddha’s middle path flourished in religious philosophy and called for harmony, peace, and co-existence, the political path became thorny with contradicting ideological competitions and rivalry. This would, given the geopolitical competition for power supremacy, remain as a testing ground in Nepal, if we passively watch and give space to become a pawn of a chessboard.
