By Deepak Joshi Pokhrel
Ever since we restored democracy in 1990, we have seen several governments led by leftists and centrists with coalition governments. Though the coalition government helped to avert political instability, it has always been viewed with scepticism in terms of uncertainty.
It is a fact that our politicians–irrespective of their parties–have been guided by parochial interest. They have failed to rise to the occasion for the sake of the broader interest of the nation. In plain words, the petty interest of the parties and their leaders overrides the national interest. When parties with diverse ideologies agree to come together to form a coalition government, it is much less likely to complete its given term.
Article 56 (6) of the constitution underscores the nation’s commitment to a multi-party, competitive, democratic republic. Additionally, Article 269 (1) defines a political party as an organization of individuals united by a common political ideology, philosophy and program. But even the constitutional provisions are given short shrift by the parties and leaders for their personal advantage.
When we assess the origin of the coalition government in Nepal, we will find that the first-ever coalition government in Nepal led by Sher Bahadur Deuba in 1992 was a bonhomie of the Nepali Congress (NC) and Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP). This marked the beginning of such practices in Nepal and has continued to thrive till this date. In the years that followed, we saw the coalition of RPP and UML led by Lokendra Bhadur Chand and the coalition of RPP and NC led by Surya Bhadur Thapa. All these coalitions were simply a two-party affair. But in the recent past, the coalition government comprises more than five parties. The present coalition government led by Pushpakamal Dahal consist of seven different parties with diverse political ideologies.
Of course, the coalition government are formed in circumstances to avert political void. It has been perceived as a government with no certainty. According to coalition theoretician W H Riker, information uncertainty is the general cause of defection among the coalition partners. If information is imperfect, the coalitional behavior of the parties is not known until the very last minute. In other words, if information is imperfect, parties may defect from the coalition.
The broader consensus among the coalition partners on issues bearing on the rights of citizens is something which has been viewed as the biggest problem. The declaration of Maitighar to Baneshwor as a prohibited area is a case in point. The highly placed report says that the coalition partners were divided on the issues. Some were against the move while others were supporting the move.
Apart from broader consensus, the coalition partners often engaged in horse trading for their personal advantage. They do not miss any opportunity to blame and fight for a caveat position which often puts the coalition government at stake.
In coalition governments, the ultimate result is that the content of parties’ political ideology is severely diluted, because the left party, right party, caste-based party, communal political party, regional party and so on come together under a single umbrella. Often it is seen that the various demands made by the coalition partners lead to extreme tension within the government and make it impossible to formulate laws and implement good decisions.
A cursory look at the coalition government clearly indicates that it remains under pulls and pressure from several political competing interests. This is manifested in the recent decision to declare Falgun 1 to commemorate the so-called People’s War Day – a term not officially recognised by the constitution. This decision antagonized some coalition partners which even threatened to withdraw its support. This clearly indicates that coalition partners constantly exert pressure if it is not happy with the move.
The coalition partners have different ideologies, agendas and electoral manifestos. During the election, the parties commit to refurbishing their constituency- socio, economic and political. But when they join the coalition government after winning the election, they are unable to influence decisions given their weak political strength. As a result, they cannot fulfil the promise they made to their voters during the election. This led to great disenchantment among the voters who will be in no mood to vote them again thereafter.
It has been often seen that coalition partner with fewer seats in the parliament has to compromise over their position, issues and tactics. In plain words, the partners with a strong presence in the parliament dominate influencing the decision and result. Such practices are more common in countries like ours where coalition partners with fewer seats in the parliament are seldom taken with high seriousness.
Many political observers say that coalition politics and governments have been notorious for letting people down as the political parties and their leaders work more as a coterie of oligarchs to safeguard their own existence and prevalence. They argue that coalition politics and governments have become a norm as a necessity for the political parties to avert the political catastrophe.
The present coalition government has been under immense pressure to keep the diverse parties intact. The partners time and again threatened to withdraw support and join the opposition to form the new government. Such practice has only affected the nation politically and economically. In a two-thirds majority government, such threats are a distant dream as the government can work independently without any threat and pressure.
We hope that coalition partners do not unnecessarily put their illogical demands laying the ground to dismantle the government. We hope this coalition government completes its given tenure and silent the critics.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect People’s Review’s editorial stance.
Login to add a comment