If indeed politics makes strange bedfellows, we have seen it all in Nepal.

Sher Bahadur Deuba kick-started the process in post-1990 Nepal, when he rehabilitated the former votaries of the Panchayat system, who had metamorphosed into the Rastriya Prajantra Party, and formed a coalition government with them. To spite and to oust him, the CPN-UML went one better and actually offered the prime ministerial throne to a former Pancha. That was, of course, the bad old days of a hung parliament when horse-trading had reached its pinnacle.

The New Nepal heralded in 2006 proved no better. Starting with the 12-point understanding between the Seven-Party Alliance and the CPN (Maoist) in November 2005 to the as-yet unconsummated seven-point agreement between the Nepali Congress and the CPN (Maoist Centre) and the countless other similarly verbose pacts in between, we have seen cohabitation arrangements that one would have thought were impossible. The strangest is perhaps the sight of two deputy prime ministers in the outgoing government—one of whom actually is virulently opposed to the new constitution, and another who would do anything to undermine one of its fundamental premises, federalism.

Were things to go according to the Deuba-Prachanda plan, one of them will soon be ensconced in Baluwatar while the other bides his time to take over nine months later. The irony of this arrangement cannot be lost on anyone. For, it was 20 years ago that Prachanda and his party began an armed insurgency against the government led by Sher Bahadur Deuba. And, now they find themselves as comrades-in-arms.

There remains the question of the alternation as prime minister. Since it is mentioned nowhere in this brand newest of agreements, one would have to presume that there is once again a gentlemen’s agreement between the two former prime ministers. Given how discredited such an arrangement has been in the past two iterations—between Sushil Koirala and Oli, and between Oli and Prachanda—one can only hope that the newfound bonhomie between Deuba and Prachanda will also restore the standing of this most honourable of agreements.

The seat warmers

Before becoming prime minister, KP Oli had insisted that his all-too-apparent eagerness to lead the country was not driven by any ambition to have his portrait up in the gallery of prime ministers in Singha Durbar (a rogues’ gallery, as some wags would have it). After all, he was going to deliver the moon and everything that came with it to Nepal. Even though he tried to delude us, and seemingly himself, into believing that he was going to change the face of the country, he surely must have known that things were stacked against him from the very beginning; that it was only a matter of time before the ones waiting in the wings would begin to get restless. That has been the tragedy of Nepali politics—the main function of the chief executive of the country is limited to being the seat warmer for the next one lucky in this perennial game of musical chairs.

One wonders if that is a reason why none of our former prime ministers have renounced politics, and remain forever hopeful that the political turn of events will favour them once again. Everyone has tasted power but has hardly got a chance to wield it in any meaningful sense. Since we have to assume that all politicians would like to work towards some kind of legacy, the always unceremonious exit could be the reason it leaves them hungry for more.

Contrast this with the recent political developments in the United Kingdom. John Major was the prime minister when Deuba assumed office for the first time. But there was not even a whisper of the possibility of his return during the political turmoil that gripped his party after the Brexit vote. He is happy being plain old Sir John Major, KG, CH, PC. And, age has nothing to do with it. Major is only three years older than the septuagenarian Deuba, yet he has been out of politics for nearly two decades, and now revels in his role as a senior Tory statesman. The difference, of course, is that Major was prime minister long before Deuba came to power in 1995 and was still the prime minister when Deuba found himself without a parliamentary majority 18 months later.

Principled alliance

There must be someone who is keeping track of all these agreements that periodically pop up as a response to our political crises since the signatories certainly have shown no interest in revisiting the contents. One does wonder though how they come up with the number of points of agreement since there are any number of issues the country is faced with. For instance, how is the current seven-point agreement different from the nine-point agreement reached just weeks ago? How do the points of convergence between Prachanda and Deuba differ from the ones between Prachanda and Oli? In hardly any way, since these agreements are meant to be forgotten before the ink dries up; all they do is serve as no more than fig leaves for what stinks of rank opportunism.

The most shameful aspect of this making and breaking of alliances is the utter disregard the parties have for the people. I am not talking about lofty goals such as lifting the country out of poverty, etc, etc. At a much more fundamental level, it is not without reason why certain people vote for the UML or the Nepali Congress, others for the Maoists or for the MJF-Loktantrik, and yet others for RPP-Nepal. And, when these forces cobble themselves together in some kind of coalition, there should at least be some respect for these differences in popular opinion. For instance, I think many of their supporters would like the Maoists to explain how they manage to reconcile their secular republicanism with the Hindu monarchist vision of RPP-Nepal. The best I have heard so far is effective implementation of the constitution, which hardly stands to scrutiny given RPP-Nepal’s staunch opposition to key elements of the constitution itself.

No matter their rhetoric, it is time our political leaders recognised that no party is going to garner a majority in future elections, and begin thinking of pre-electoral alliances. People would at least know that either in power or out of it, the group consisting of X, Y and Z, which are for a certain set of principles, will always stand together against the coalition of A, B, C and D, which are for their own set of principles. More importantly, this could even lead to real ideological competition unlike now, where no matter who comes to power, nothing changes on the ground. Politics will also become more interesting once it expands from the streets into the realm of ideas.