Plot twister events are synonymous with Nepali politics. In a surprising turn, the 15-month-long partnership between the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre) and the Nepali Congress (NC) headed by Pushpa Kamal Dahal collapsed. A new coalition government was formed, yet again, under his premiership. Prachanda has also expanded the Council of Ministers to 20 members, including three Home Ministers. However, the government will have to test the floor within a month, which looks challenging.

The new coalition has four political parties on board, the Maoist Centre, the CPN-UML, the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) and the Janata Samajwadi Party (JSP). With this, PM Dahal has changed the shoulder of power twice since in position. Earlier, he became premier with the support of UML after betraying the then-electoral alliance. Some predictable incidents occurred in Nepali politics, resulting in the current fate.

Mistrust between the ruling congress and the Maoist Centre had been brewing for quite some time. Dahal wanted to replace some ministers due to the question in their performance, to which, according to Dahal, Deuba paid no heed. The rift between them had further extended over the Chair of the National Assembly. Dahal had plans to appoint his party's member to the key post, which could not materialise. In addition, in the Mahasamiti (General Assembly) meeting of the Nepali Congress, the NC leaders passed a proposal not to form electoral alliances. A political document presented in the meeting about Maoist insurgency and its negative repercussions on the country’s economy fueled the fire.

Making and breaking political coalitions have become a norm in Nepali politics, resulting in political instability, fragmentation and unstable governments and governance. Governments formed since 2008 have followed suit. No coalition governments have stood intact for the entire term. Yet, there has always been reshuffling of the same cards to bring out the same person, making no effort to address the looming economic crisis and governance issues. So, why has coalition politics repeatedly failed in Nepal and who is to blame for the collapse? In this regard, we analyse a few factors here.

Coalitions for power

With the formation of every coalition government, the question that hovers over is not how the coalition will run the country and what its development agendas will be but calculations of how long the coalition will last. Such discussions have already surfaced over the formation of a new four-party alliance as well. Having said this, it would be no wrong to say that homework for the collapse of a coalition is carried out from the very day of its formation.

Political leaders start ploughing plots to quench their thirst to remain in power at any cost, putting the basic political culture and the essence of the coalition at the helm. The idea of survival in politics at the behest of power is deeply ingrained in every political leader in Nepal. The so-called alternative forces also fall into the same category. The newly formed alliance is already in hot soup as it was finding it hard to strike a power-sharing deal to distribute the key ministerial portfolios. This squabble over ministerial portfolios extended to the newbies, including the RSP and Janamat Party, which makes the so-called alternative force no different than the conventional political actors.

This common chase of power between the old and the new substantiates a famous saying in Nepali, Jun jogi aye ni kanai chireko, thus marring basic political morality and dharma. The aftershocks of this change have also started reaching the provinces, and the formation of a new government in some provinces is complicated as the current alliance comprising CPN-Maoist, CPN-UML, RSP and JSP lacks representation in all provinces. No doubt, such internal mismanagement also makes fertile ground for geopolitical manoeuvring.

Build coalition culture

The literal meaning of coalition is to grow together. A coalition government should represent diverse perspectives and address the grievances of diverse strata of society as well as entail tolerance, flexibility, cooperation and collaboration. Nepal’s coalition politics is no closer to this culture of ‘growing together’ and ‘coming together’ for the good of the nation. Coalition partners in Nepal seem to have no standard policy and programme, as the partnership is just to fulfil their vested interest in power. For a sound coalition, political parties must agree on a boundary that they will not cross while agreeing to form a coalition. Over everything else, they should be honest, and for the sustainability of coalitions, the political forces must ally only on the planks of the nation’s betterment.

Another essential element of a lasting partnership is building trust and communication among coalition members and across the broader political spectrum. It would also be necessary to be mindful of how responsibilities are divided among coalition members. If this does not go right, the coalition could develop hidden enemies within itself. This is perhaps one of the reasons why cracks develop in the Nepali government.

Nepal is currently in a complex vortex of deepening economic crisis; its bulging youth population is migrating en masse in search of work opportunities, while people are dying in countries like Russia and Ukraine, the country neither has an idea of the significant number of Nepalis serving in Ukraine and Russian military nor has any plans for compensation to the families of deceased. Conversely, the leaders have sidelined all these issues and are busy bargaining for power. We are in a situation of constant political instability and unpredictability. It is high time political parties develop a modicum of political culture and come together for the nation’s development and better governance.