A new political scenario has emerged in the country after the two major parties, Congress and UML, agreed to jointly lead the government for the rest of the term of the House of Representatives. This alliance, formed with the aim of amending the constitution, claims to provide political stability to the country and solve economic and social problems. What are the reasons behind the agreement between the two major parties, which is rarely seen in the parliamentary system, to share power?

Why did the UML join the Congress by leaving the Maoist president Pushpa Kamal Dahal, who was carried on his shoulders? Durga Khanal of Kantipur and Jaisingh Mahara A conversation between Congress and UML recently What are the main bases of the consensus of power? 

The 'realization' that the main problem of Nepal's development and prosperity is instability is the main basis of consensus. The main point is that we have to find the basis of political stability and only through that we can institutionalize and strengthen democracy. It is necessary to review the strengths and weaknesses of the implementation of the constitution and amend the constitution to make other laws. We came to the conclusion that a government of national consensus is suitable for that. That is the main basis of forming a new government.

UML General Secretary Shankar Pokharel . Photos: Angad Dhakal/Kantipur

At present, what the people expect from the political parties and the government, they have not been able to get. The major political parties are also responsible for addressing it. We have to move forward by removing the obstacles seen in good governance, corruption control and development in the country. There is economic laxity in the country. Entrepreneurs need to be brought out of despair. The migration of young people to foreign countries has started to increase, to stop it, decent job opportunities must be created. How this is possible, the feeling that we should proceed from that angle has brought the two parties together. 

What are the main topics covered in the agreement? 

What is the basis of cooperation between the two parties was a procedural matter. The main 'thrust' of our agreement is the question of political stability and development and good governance in the country. The main thing is to make the economy dynamic.

According to parliamentary practice, two major parties should be in power and opposition. Will the two-party autocracy increase when Congress-UML joins?

In general what you say is correct. UML and Congress are both major parties. Congress is the first in the result, UML in the public opinion. In a democracy, both public opinion and results are meaningful. In a normal democratic process, one party should be in power and the other should be in the opposition. However, it is necessary to address the dissatisfaction that people have towards the system and practice today. Addressing that was linked to the constitution. No single party can change the constitution. 

I would like to give a reference – once there was monetary contraction in Nepal. At that time there was a currency crisis. Bank deposits decreased. Banks adopted a policy of increasing interest to increase deposits. Because of this, businessmen were in crisis of interest. Economic despair ensued. Recently, after the issue of gold smuggling came out, UML demanded the constitution of a constitutional commission to control it. After the formation of the commission, the crisis of monetary liquidity in the country has expanded. There is enough money in the bank now. The state had to invest only for the expansion of liquidity.

Banks have not been able to invest as much as they are depositing. That is what the current crisis is all about. Businessmen are not enthusiastic about investing. Because we have not been able to provide a professional environment. Confidence has not been created in businessmen. Now there is no guarantee that the country's economy will improve. The private sector does not invest when there is a guarantee of profit. Businessmen said that such a situation has appeared in the country, if the big parties cannot stay outside or become allies, a reliable investment environment can be created in the country. In that sense, the idea that someone from Congress and UML should lead began to emerge. If both big parties come together, economic crises will be avoided by creating an environment of trust. We have come to an angle that if the people's frustration due to the economic crisis ends, the foundation for democracy will be prepared.  The

, on the other hand, was a stunt by talking about corruption control in abstract terms. Only the big party can really control corruption. If they really resolve and go in favor of corruption control and good governance, the system will automatically go towards good governance. Stunts by small parties do not lead to corruption control and good governance. It gets discussed but the system is not built. For that, we think that the big parties should take the lead. When there is a crisis in democracy or when there is extreme despair among the people, it is the work of the major parties that must be done to instill hope. Therefore, the cooperation of big parties should be seen from this angle.

The Maoists, who contested the elections in alliance with the Congress, formed the government together with the UML after 2079. After two months, the Maoists returned to the Congress. Three months ago, UML again supported the Maoists. Now again you left that side and went to Congress. Did events create such a dynamic?

After the election, I conveyed an idea on behalf of the party. Our party's analysis at that time was that both the then coalition and us could not get the mandate. So we said we are not in a position to claim leadership. The alliance is stronger than us but the alliance itself is a failure. Running the state from a failed coalition is a waste of time, in that sense the major parties should exit the coalition. We said that UML is ready to form the government under the leadership of whoever comes out.

We did not claim leadership. We sent that proposal to both Congress and Maoists. I myself sat many times in negotiations with the Congress. But the Congress could not reach a conclusion. The Maoists were not willing at first, but when the Maoists realized that they were not getting the leadership as per the pre-agreed. Then we are ready for discussion. We were in dialogue with other parties. As soon as Prachanda came to Balkot, within an hour we ensured a sufficient majority. Prachanda was ready after seeing a sufficient majority before his eyes. But for what reason, within two months he returned to the Congress.

Then the 'performance' of the government became more disappointing. We said that if we want to get the country out of the crisis, we have to find a new option. We went to dialogue with Prachanda. Prachanda is ready. A new equation is created. Alopalo had understanding even then. But if you want to protect the country from instability, you should not create confusion by saying that it is alo-palo. The chairman and I said that even if the whole period goes under Prachanda's leadership, let it go. We gave him that 'confidence'. We said that in order to overcome the disappointment of the people and to get the government to take a step forward. In that sense, we did not look for an alternative to the government led by Prachanda.  If you didn't choose the

option, what made you disillusioned with Prachanda last time?

Prachandaji went to India after Narendra Modi became the Prime Minister for the third time in India. We told him that if he can, he will go with the constituent UML. But we did not think it appropriate to send our representative after saying that it is not a formal visit, but only a speech as the Prime Minister. We were in a friendly and supportive role to that extent. But after his return he started talking about forming a government of national consensus without consulting us. We tried to understand Prachanda. But when we felt that he was beginning to give diplomatic answers without saying yes or no, we started consulting the Congress.

We got information that Prachandaji talked about the government of national consensus with the Congress. On the one hand, it was seen that the government could not give the right 'delivery', on the other hand, Prachanda himself was talking about a government of national consensus. But if it is a matter of national consensus, it is known that the Congress wants to go with the UML rather than the Maoists. We came to the conclusion that if national consensus can be justified not only for the name, but also for the work, let's discuss with the Congress. The message that the two major parties are united only for the government is not appropriate. It means that it is appropriate to get together to solve the crisis in the country. We were telling the Congress that after the two big parties come together, the bargaining power of the smaller parties will be reduced. That idea had not materialized in the past.

In Nepal, it is said that during the formation and collapse of governments and coalitions, cooperation with the neighbors takes place. Even now, after returning from his visit to India, the Prime Minister started doing something else. What did the neighbors have to do with these events?

Prachandaji can say that officially. Why didn't he say anything before that and after returning from India, he introduced this topic (government of national consensus) into Nepali politics? After the election results of 2079, I have said many times - the reason for Nepal's instability is the division of public opinion between many political parties.

It is natural that there will be many parties during autocratic regimes and dictatorships when they cannot keep their agendas. But in a democracy, too much organization around a single idea is not appropriate. Political polarization is inevitable on the basis of policy. To lead development and prosperity in Nepal, not many parties, but strong parties are needed. Liberal capitalism and socialism are the dominant currents. The leader of one faction may be the Congress and the other may be the UML. If I stay within the party, I could not even be selected, if I win independently, I will automatically become a minister.

Such thinking weakens democracy. Weakening of parties means weakening of democracy. Therefore, it is necessary to have a strong party in a democracy. On the other hand, the state needs to be strong for development and prosperity. Strong parties are the basis of stability in a democracy. A new equation has been created from the perspective of debating from that angle. I think this equation can form the basis for a new direction. Now the basis for strengthening the parties constitutionally and legally is sought. On the other hand, the position of bargaining for power through practically small parties, claiming to be decisive even if small, ends. 

said two edges should be strong. But since the Congress and UML have come together, there are no longer two sides, isn't it?

is for the current Unity Mission-84. We believe that stability should be achieved through big parties on a constitutional and legal basis, ending the bargaining power of small parties. Therefore, the agenda of constitutional amendment and law making is for political stability. The current system has created complications in building a strong political party. Solving it makes parties stronger and brings stability. Development and prosperity can accelerate. 

It is said that the electoral system will be changed with your consent, what kind of electoral system are you trying to create? 

A sufficient basis for the amendment of the constitution is not prepared by the discussion of only two parties. Other parties should also be consulted on that. The reforms we make should create solutions and hope, not problems. The present election system has been connected with the aspirations of the Nepalese society. That aspiration should not be allowed to die, structural reforms should be done while preserving it. While discussing, the aspiration of proportional inclusion can also be addressed, and a system can be developed to ensure the majority.

It is said that there is an agreement to make the National Assembly fully proportional, to keep only the direct election system in the provinces, to reduce the number of local levels and to increase the number of wards?

is not discussed at that level. We are getting that as a general response in the form of suggestions from people on public media or social media. Solving one problem should not lead to another problem. In that sense, we should think about whether there is an alternative way to address the aspiration of proportional inclusion and ensure stability. Saying that it failed mechanically, let's go another way, could create a new kind of resentment. We should find an alternative that does not create new dissatisfaction. 

There were many dissatisfactions during the constitution making process. How much have you considered that after opening the door of constitutional amendment, those issues will enter and new complications may arise?

The 'strength' of UML-Congress has been revealed more than during the Constituent Assembly. The new parties that have come in have a slightly different nature of issue to take forward. That is why there is a difference in the program 'position in the term of the Constituent Assembly during the Constituent Assembly.

's experiences have become revealed in their declaration of the parties. In that sense, there is a difference in yesterday and the situation in today's world is to understand. We are to go in a consent of changing and reviewing the constitution and finds others towards building a solution to yesterday. Not in terms of controversy, hope is to go with hope. & Nbsp;

has said national consensus, who are involved in it? & nbsp; The

is required to look at the national consensus from two angles. & Nbspa; Another, if the basis of the two-thirds of Streyings to amend the constitution is, the national consensus is. & Nbsp; What happens to the Maoist location under

National consensus? The

Maoist Peace Process is to join the Government of Peace Procession and to end the work of peace process, as soon as possible. We have asked them that. In their absence, the process under the purpose of national consensus will move. But if they are not participating in the government by participating in the government by agreeing to our efforts, they are not part of the government for other process. & Nbsp; What is the Maoist Secretariat with Shortly after Singh-BRAK UML-Congress agreement has made it reactions with the end to repatriation? & NBSP;

may hear their 'statement' in his decision that the Congress will continue to move forward by strengthening the federal democratic republic. We are not trying to grow in a weaker of the federal democratic republic. We are about to search for the basis for the aboverbutty basis and search for the basis for strengthening the parties. The political parties are the basis for strong, as the process of 'threshold'. The provision of 1.5 percent votes in the state is also a position to achieve the provincial party and receive proportional seats.

is unstable than the state government. There is no need to enter the Threshhold's law legal, for that. On the other hand, addressing the direct election, addressing the emotional inclination of the electoral system, can be addressed to strengthen the direct election. I don't think that it can be searched for that way, it will affect the essence of the constitution. & NBSP; The

-UML belonged to the past 2062/63 in the past 2062/63 in the past 2062/63, the constitution drafting, the Constituent Assembly election. But the agreement was dismissal after the constitution was promulgated in 2072 BS. What is guaranteed that the current consensus will also lead to implementation of the current consensus?

has been in the opposite of Nepali politics. We which we need to move forward in a positive direction, we have failed. It is to move forward by learning from that. The first Constituent Assembly which has been successful after failing after the first Constituent Assembly had finished the failure, adding Maoist.

was that the construction of the Constitution, which was impossible to lead the constitution, and the UML was conducted by the party. But when the question of imprints to implement the constitution, the leadership has come to the path that some major parties should not match some leaders within the Congress. Sushil Koiralajikari candidate Sushil Koiralagyar. A type of proposal violated. In the 'RhyLegison "is now a' Ryaleeization 'is now self.

is currently created a new situation. We again came to the same point yesterday. He said that the constitution drafting and implementation of the constitution. We are now involved in addressing the complexities of the constitution implementation. This process has to solve the complexity of the constitution by solving the new election elections. Therefore, the complexity implementation of the implementation of the constitution, KP Oli also leads the lead in that includes the Nepali Congress. The Congress leads to the process of implementing, UML helps. & Nbsp; The

will be the case when power has been changed after a year and a half years later, if the Maoists followed that, UML-Congress does not break?

has never been braved because of us. Prachandi is not a conclusive situation that you keep upning Nepal's politics in Nepal's politics. We have already turned out from that place. I think, politics now walks in a straight path. We are generally on us understand that we should solve the complication of the constitution in two years. Then the stage of the process of implementation begins. & Nbsp;

is also different from your electoral people's basis. Will the election be another coalition during the election in doubt that affects his grandchild?

we are in the coangeage. Eleven leadership has not been elected since 2048. We have taken elections with others. We do not recognize that power is inevitable for the election. The world is when you understand, the UML is not the case so far. The main thing is the people. The agea's agenda is to carry on the election. & Nbsp;

was all the election in the Congress and UML in power. Others have a alliance with the UML or not? We are recognized on the truth that the election should fightout the election without the

. It is arguing that the alliance before the election is not suitable to move Nepali politics on the right space. I have continued myself. In the last election, I have placed the same offer to friends of the Nepali Congress. The Congress is also feeling as I think. Some leaders in the Congress have said that the election before the election is not suitable for the alliance. & Nbsp;

are many communist components, will also have the unity with the power in elections, and nbsp;

we are asked to come to the communist components to come to UML. Indeed to build socialism, we said to the mainstream, not by the moles. If we come to connect to the mainstream, we would welcome, but not a success that it is successful in the existence of a party. One practice we have not succeeded in 2074. Why repeat the same mistake? Now that connecting the leader's head, unity unblem is failed. If you want to think about the future, the minds should add cadres. The head of the head connecting. Does

is also not the electricity between the selection between separate party?

to existence a very party is the creation of volatility for the country. Madhav Nepal also needed the Prime Minister when 10 seats. The base of his dissatisfaction was the pain of giving me the Prime Minment in the first equation, now that the pain that KP Oly was connected to KP Olyley. In that sense, 10 seats to get prime minister, 32 seats continue to be the Prime Minister. Anyone has come in the name of the Communist party. Whatever the party comes to end the instability. & Nbsp; How does Ramapaphapa, which does Rhetpa, on parliament, on the parliament, play the role of Nepal and an integrated socialist in the national consensus government?

constitution-making process requires them with all. When the competition of the constitution, the process begins, the Congress and UML should move forward in the process of not alliance with anyone during the new election. & Nbsp;

is likely to be covered in the current government about small parties? Only two-party is not guaranteed only two-parts to amend the

. We are trying to test the constitution. Now is not binding for the government. Even now we connect a certain parties, a two-thirds are reaching. Other Leaders stay, but we connect to the process of amending the constitution. & Nbsp; When does the government construction process led by

President Oli begins? The

Prachandi is suitable for helping the process forward to form a new government while resigrating a majority. No I get a month period if I wanted to use the maximum rights I want to use the maximum rights of the constitution. & Nbsp; Is it an analyzing the analysis of the construction of the vote for the vote of the story and not a vote. & nbsp;

now is confused now, while the government of the Constitution is focused on the issue of the constitution. The belief that is now the word of the constitution is a new process of the section 100 against the constitution. That process is on a rank if the government does not have faith. The older process of the constitution again returns to the very process of constitution after the