By Deepak Joshi Pokhrel A popular saying goes, “Something never changes”. This old adage fits appropriately into our so-called leaders as if it were made for them. The latest dispute between the Maoist Center and UML further validates it. The dispute emerged after the UML described the decade-long Maoist insurgency as “violence”. Addressing the House meeting on August 28, Yogesh Bhattarai, UML Secretary, said that the Maoist insurgency was “unfortunate” and as a result, the country could not excel economically because physical infrastructures were destroyed across the country. As expected, the Maoists vent ire saying that it was a deliberate attempt to demean the party and its contribution to the socio-economic and political transformation of the nation. Soon after the war of words took the nasty shape. As a sign of aggression, the Maoists obstructed the house proceeding and threatened to continue its obstruction. Party chair Pushpakamal Dahal directed its lawmakers to strongly retaliate UML's attempt to disrespect the people’s war. In the words of Dahal, the Maoist insurgency was not violence but a glorious people’s movement that was instrumental in ousting the monarch paving the avenues to usher into an era of democratic-republican set-up Bhattarai is a popular and charismatic face in the party. He has time and again expressed his dissatisfaction over the people’s war. In a recent television interview, he said that his family was attacked by Maoists at the time of 13 days of mourning over the death of his family member a long time ago. But his recent remarks over the Maoist People’s War have annoyed the former rebels who are now hell-bent on obstructing House meetings. In Nepalese politics, the blame game among the political parties and their leaders is nothing new. Blame game has become the trademark as is evident in our context. The politicians in any press conference spit venom against their political opponents. They do not miss any opportunity to blame the political opponent for the country’s poor economic development. But they enjoyed a cocktail party together in a lavish resort cracking jokes soon after the press conference. This is the hallmark of Nepalese politics. The parliament is not anybody’s private property and it can be run as per their wish. Rather, it is an august body of elected representatives. The lawmakers use this place to talk about the betterment of the people. Further, it is an institution exercising the sovereignty of the people. It ensures important functions like policy-making and law-making in the governance system through management work methods. On the contrary, our politicians, regardless of their parties, obstruct the house proceedings even under the slightest pretext. No doubt, the opposition can raise their voice over any dissatisfaction move of the ruling government. It can launch peaceful protests without hampering the house proceeding. Likewise, the dissent voices should be resolved through dialogue and negotiation. This makes democracy stronger and more vibrant. However, this is not the case here. The dispute between parties very often leads to obstructing the House meeting. Only in Nepal, do we witness parliament becoming the hostage of the parties. When we assess our experiences with democratic exercise, we will find that our politicians -- no matter which party they belong to -- obstruct the parliament as if this is their last resort to voice their dissatisfaction. This is mainly due to a lack of morality and ethics among our so-called political leaders. The two communists -- one ruling and the other in opposition at present -- have always been in a love-hate relationship ever since the Maoist Centre joined the peaceful politics. Both tend to ditch each other at any point in time and join hands with other parties mainly the Nepali Congress for their benefit. In 2017, right before the general election, the two communists -- the Maoist Center and CPN (UML) -- buried their hatches and joined hands saying the move would ensure political stability. The merge came as a surprise for everyone because people across the country knew that the two swords could not be put into one sheath. A few years later, the two communists set apart validating the people’s perception. In the days that followed, both remained aloof for quite some time. The leaders of both parties were spiting venom against each other in any event. But they came together again after finding their political position was at high risk. The immediate past coalition government culminated when Dahal and Oli shed their ego and formed the government under Dahal's leadership. They promised to remain intact till the next general election. Their promise and commitment to ensure political stability were very pleasing to ears. After some time, the UML ditched the Maoist Centre, withdrew its support and joined hands with the Nepali Congress which was fundamentally different in terms of political ideology. It was anybody’s guess that what led Oli to dump Dahal and join hands with the Nepali Congress. But given our political leaders' tendency to ditch anyone at any time, the present coalition government between UML and Nepali Congress is very unlikely to function till the next general election. While the distressed Dahal was observing the activities of the present coalition government between NC and UML, remarks of Yogesh Bhattarai irked him further. This has led to widening the differences between him and Oli to a large extent. Consequently, the Maoists and UML are at loggerheads yet again. But the debatable question is whether both parties will remain poles apart or forget their animosity and join hands as a marriage of convenience. Everyone is watching it very carefully.