In the ever-shifting landscape of Nepali politics, the KP Sharma Oli-led CPN-UML has abruptly ended its support to Pushpa Kamal Dahal's government and decided to forge a new alliance with the Nepali Congress (NC). With this, Prime Minister Dahal has already fallen into the minority, while the NC and the UML have started working on forming a new government. This latest political development, however, begs a critical question: Are these political realignments merely about the quest for power, or are they genuinely aimed at improving the lives of Nepali citizens? Barely four months after extending support to Dahal's leadership, the UML, the second-largest party in Parliament, has decided to join forces with the NC, the largest party. According to the draft agreement reached between the two parties, Oli will lead a 'national consensus' government for two years, followed by Deuba for the remaining term of the current parliament. The agreement also outlines plans for constitutional amendments, electoral system reforms, and adjustments to the national and provincial assemblies. If everything proceeds as planned, Oli will stake his claim to the prime minister's post imminently, supported by the NC and other fringe parties.
Why do DGs and secretaries change when ministers change?
This new alliance, although politically expedient, raises significant concerns. The recurring theme of Nepali politics—alliances formed and dissolved based on the whims and petty interests of political leaders—suggests a disturbing trend of change for change's sake. This approach often neglects the fundamental purpose of governance: to serve the people and address their pressing needs. Nepal's current challenges are daunting: economic instability, unemployment, unresolved transitional justice issues, and the need for effective governance reforms, including curbing rampant corruption. The political drama over appointments, such as the chairman of the Securities Board of Nepal, shows political parties are involved in exploiting state resources for their partisan benefit. The recent Bhutanese refugee scam, implicating politicians and bureaucrats, equally underscores the need for robust and transparent governance. While Oli and Deuba’s understanding also includes plans for constitutional amendments and addressing national issues, the efficacy of these changes remains questionable if they are primarily motivated by political survival rather than genuine reform. The promise of a high-powered constitution review committee, amendments to improve governance, and a focus on economic crises are commendable. However, these promises must translate into tangible benefits for the people of Nepal.
There were indications of a rift within the UML-Maoist Center coalition over key appointments and the so-called 'Maoist budget.' These differences seem to have culminated to the point where UML chose to sever its ties with the Maoist Center and forge an alliance with the NC instead. These moves, while strategically sound for any political actors in coalition politics, risk sidelining the broader goal of national development and well-being of the people. The public deserves a government that prioritizes their well-being over political machinations. As the process of forming a new government has already begun, we urge all parties involved to focus on creating jobs, improving infrastructure, ensuring justice, and enhancing the overall quality of life. Political stability and continuity are crucial for these goals, and the parties should ensure that the new alliance will continue for a reasonable period, unlike the four-month-old alliance between UML and the Maoist Center. Changes in alliance in coalition politics cannot be taken otherwise. However, such change must not be pursued merely for its own sake. The true measure of any political change should be its positive impact on the lives of the people. It is high time our political leaders rose above their personal and party interests to deliver the governance and end the systemic corruption that the nation desperately needs. Only then can the change in the government coalition be deemed meaningful and effective.
