National unity government
In theory, a national unity government comprising all the parties represented in the Constituent Assembly, as mooted by some intellectuals, makes perfect sense. In a bitterly divided transitional polity, it's indeed hard to fault the logic of (and the sentiments behind) political parties from across the political spectrum coming together to collectively deal with a national crisis. But precisely for the same reason—a highly polarized polity—there are likely to be many practical hurdles in the formation and functioning of such a government. The big question will be regarding its leadership. Some in the opposition have argued that the new unity government should be led by a national figure who is fit, both in mind and body, to take up the enormous challenges ahead for the post-earthquake Nepal. The implication is clear: the frail Sushil Koirala cannot shoulder such burdens. But if not Koirala, then who? Since CPN-UML chief KP Oli will be ruled out for the same reason, such a widely acceptable figure for new government head will have to come from either the opposition camp or from within the civil society.The last time our political parties went searching for such consensus figure, they ended up picking a sitting Chief Justice as government head, making a mockery of their commitment to democratic values. What's the guarantee that this kind of troubling political experimentation won't be repeated? After all, when Baburam Bhattarai vacated the PM's chair back in March 2013, initial efforts were aimed at picking a government head from within the political parties. But such a consensus political candidate was nowhere to be found. If all parties are committed to government of national unity, the best bet might be to include smaller parties into the current ruling coalition. This is not to paper over Sushil Koirala's failures as a leader and statesman. But in the absence of a clear alternate candidate acceptable to a broad section of the polity, it makes sense to retain Koirala. Another assumption that calls for a close scrutiny is that the parties represented in a unity government will collectively work to rebuild Nepal. But if the past is any guide, the greater the number of parties in government, the lesser that government achieves. The problems of mismanagement and corruption, the two ubiquitous traits of recent Nepali governments, will only get worse.
Again, we are not against the idea of national unity government per se. But anyone proposing the idea must be able to spell out who will lead it and how it will govern, much less rebuild the devastated country. Rather than jump into ideal solutions, the practicalities and long-term implications of such ideal solutions must first be thought through. Moreover, if the opposition parties are committed to helping Nepalis in this time of need, they can ably help from the outside, not the least as a vital check on questionable government actions. On the balance of things, a national unity government that involves leadership change could raise more problems than it will help solve.