By Deepak Joshi Pokhrel
Nepal has entered into an era of coalition politics. It has braced the coalition culture following the adoption of a proportional representation system in the Interim Constitution that was promulgated after the end of the decade-long armed insurgency in 2006. Oftentimes, we witness the parties that are estranged and politically poles apart mend their differences and come together to form a government which cannot be imagined in normal political circumstances. Coalition politics is not just limited to Nepal. In the European countries that have adopted a proportional representation system, the culture of the coalition is viewed as normal. The left and right parties compromise on their political ideology to form the government.
If we assess the culture of coalition politics, we will find that Nepal reconciled to one or the other kind of coalition government. Right after the first election to the constituent assembly held in 2008, the government was produced by the combination and recombination of political parties regardless of their ideological leanings and platforms. But now, the coalition culture has become the dominant practice in our political system.
In 2017, the two communists — CPN UML and Maoist Centre – developed a pre-poll alliance to challenge the Nepali Congress. They won the election and secured almost a two-thirds majority. But as the old saying goes “the two swords cannot fit into the same sheath”, this time-tested adage was proven relevant. Driven by their ego and bullying attitude, the two political heavyweights of communism failed to rise above their partisan interests. As result, the parliament was dissolved twice.
When we speak of a coalition government, it generally means two or more political parties coming together within a single umbrella to form the government if one single party does not secure the required majority to form the government. As a coalition government consisting of parties of diverse political ideologies, the chances of political competition among them are very high. In plain words, it always remains under the pulls and pressure of several competing political interests.
In pre-election, the parties in alliance adjust fighting the election for various seats. They also reach an understanding not to oppose other’s candidates in certain constituencies and even to extend support. On the other hand, the party that lacks the required majority to form the government reaches out to the parties seeking their support and form the government. There is a lot of horse trading or other types of exchanges, negotiation and much give and take occur during the post-poll alliance to form the government.
The coalition government has been viewed as a complete dilution of political ideology because the Left parties, right parties, caste-based parties, regional parties and so on come together under one umbrella. It has led to the rise of the regional party which is an important aspect of Nepalese polity. In a coalition culture, the parties are always at each other’s throats and always engaged in leg-pulling.
No doubt, the coalition government has become an established practice in Nepal’s political landscape, however, there is a dire need to look at both sides of the coalition practice through the lens of objectivity.
The coalition governments have some strengths and weaknesses as well. The strengths lie in the fact that coalition politics brings mutually antagonistic political groups into a platform and help dilute their extreme positions on national issues. This contributes to hammering out a broader consensus on the issues of strategic national interest.
This is not an exaggeration to conclude that we have been endowed with the most politically corrupt and incompetent politicians ever since we restored democracy in 1990. Political instability has become a common phenomenon. The politicians are always engaged in leg-pulling and hatch conspiracies against their political rivals leading to the dissolution of parliament. Under such circumstances, the coalition government can be viewed as an appropriate solution as it brings mutually agreed on antagonist into one platform and help dilute their extreme position on national issues. Finally, it will to hammering out a broader consensus on the issues of national strategic interest.
At the same time, the coalition government has many flaws and weaknesses. First, it is less effective and efficient with multiple centers of influencing the decision. Further, the parties are less likely to come to a consensus on key issues of national interest. The coalition government is very unstable and often collapses over partners’ stubbornness and arrogance. Re-elections are a natural phenomenon in the coalition government. The appointment of the ministers on the recommendation of the parent party without any enquiry or qualification experience or criminal records is yet another major drawback of a coalition government.
Though it may be argued that coalition government provides the best government as decisions are taken on the broader interest of the people, it is oftentimes seen that coalition partners come up with extreme demands that lead to severe headaches for the government. As a result, the government will be unable to formulate laws and implement decisions
Ever since we restored democracy, we have been told that better days will arrive soon. We were also told that sovereign power lies in the people. But, strangely, political parties with diverse ideologies and dogma come together to form the government — something which is unthinkable. We would not mind if they intend to serve the people and country. But the political situation suggests otherwise.
Whatever government- whether coalition or single party is in place, it has to work in line with the democratic principle and norms. Any attempt to undermine it will result in its downfall.
Login to add a comment