The bitter experience of alliances

We were on a quiet and completely solitary journey, separated from current affairs and contacts, including politics. Our idea was to return via Biratnagar after seeing some marginal areas of Jhapa. At the request of our friend Professor Krishna Pokharel, who came to know about our tour plan when we came to Kathmandu, we joined an interaction program at Biratnagar Elite Club.

It is not my intention to write a travelogue in this column, I have only added references. When I arrived in Kathmandu, the meeting of the Congress General Committee was just over, some media friends started questioning me. The main question in the General Committee meeting focused on the issue of pre-election alliances, the most popular. Chief Minister Gagan Thapa's stance of not making pre-election alliances is the same. What the General Committee decided, I am not yet clear. But this idea proposed by General Minister Thapa not only shook the General Committee meeting but also the politics of the ruling coalition. While the meeting was going on, Congress Chairman Sher Bahadur Deuba and Deputy Chairman Purna Bahadur Khadka reached Baluwatar and assured Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal that there would be no change in the current power alliance. However, the Maoist party, which is leading the government, also said in the legislative session held a few weeks ago that it will fight the 2084 elections alone, as a sign that it is not dependent on the Congress alone.

Whether or not there is a coalition of parties, elections will come after four years. It is useful for political parties to identify their possible paths and options from now on rather than the opportunistic tendency to fall wherever the situation pushes them around the election itself. This puts pressure on politics to be transparent and leadership to be accountable. If nothing else, voters can put their finger on the monkey-jumping behavior of leadership before and after elections and use their votes somewhat consistently. Today, I thought it would be relevant to discuss this topic in Serofero.

In a fully proportional or mixed election system, one party's majority in parliament is not impossible, not easy. A coalition with two or more parties is indispensable for the majority to form the government. The question is whether to make an alliance during the election and travel together to form the government in parliament or to form an alliance to go to the government on the basis of compatibility after the results of the election? Let alone stable alliances and thus alliance culture, our experience of alliances is bitter and unreliable. As soon as the coalition is mentioned, it brings to mind the monkey-jumping of parties and leaders and poor opportunistic politics. Gagan's concern is the same. Let's fight the election alone, after the results, we can form a coalition of compatibility based on policy opinions and needs to go to the government.

, the selection of fellow travelers of the alliance before the Nepali Congress is very limited and challenging. Who to ally with? Electoral alliances are not made with major competitors. Therefore, an electoral alliance between the Congress and the UML is unthinkable now. It's easier with smaller and medium-sized teams than you, so leadership isn't as much of a problem. This task is not so difficult if the theory of the party organization of the potential alliance partner and the geography of public support is based on it. In this sense, the easiest is an alliance of non-communist parties led by the Congress and another alliance of communist parties led by the UML. But even though it is called non-communist, Janata Samajwadi is more inclined towards UML and Maoists. Rashtriya Prajatantra Party also has more anti-Congress edge and UML is comfortable for that too. In federalism, the Congress should have facilitated cooperation and alliance with regional, especially Madhes-centric parties. Perhaps the Congress leadership has not been able to get rid of the mentality that they have encroached on their dominant area.

There was a communist alliance in the 2074 parliamentary elections, but that experiment was not stable and successful despite the very attractive electoral success. In the end, it was a disaster. Communist influence on Nepalese voters is very strong and extended. As soon as the Communist Party merges, there is still a possibility that they will get a majority. But if such an alliance cannot maintain diplomatic balance and efficiency in the neighborhood and the international community, there is also a geopolitical risk. It is not difficult to understand that in the dissolution of the UML-Maoist unity, the leadership that appeared on the surface was an internal struggle, but inwardly, external manipulation was decisive. During the

elections, our party is suffering from the mentality that everyone sees themselves first. By making the status of the leader greater than the status of the party, the coalition bargains. It is not even unusual in politics. Not only how and how much to get along with others, but also how to manage internally in one's own party is a challenge. Federalism and proportional representation are also power-sharing systems of government. If we are to practice and develop the current constitution in a progressive manner, then a visionary leadership should be able to initiate a credible alliance without focusing on immediate benefits. There is no need to be ashamed of saying it is the Communist Party. Today there is no party that carries communist ideology. There is no significant difference in the democratic process and economic-social policy. The key is the development of reliable stable alliances and an alliance culture.

When I reached various parts of the country including Kathmandu, especially the hilly areas, I got the public opinion that the structure of the province has become too expensive, it is unnecessary and should be abolished. Similarly, due to proportional representation, no party will ever have a majority in the parliament, and because of this, political stability will increase, so I have heard that it is enough to maintain the direct (first-past-the-post) election system. Will abolishing provincial and proportional representation quotas improve our politics? Is the problem in these structures and provisions or in the party? Is the problem in the electoral alliance or lack of alliance culture? These questions require serious consideration. It is important to consider how such a public opinion about the

state and the election system was formed and its nature. During the last six months I made a representative tour of the Madhyapahari region from Mechi to Mahakali. Most of the people I heard from during this time were from the Khasary community, mostly Congress and Emalenikat. This is not a sample selection, it is a conversation with businessmen and ordinary citizens who are sitting together on the bus, at the hotel where they are staying or having tea. But I have not heard this very often from the Madhesi and tribal communities. Even from Dalits and women, the opposition to proportional representation has not been heard much. Therefore, this notion against provinces and proportionality is widespread, but it can be said that it belongs to certain communities and parties.

In the last parliamentary election, the National Independent Party raised the voice that it does not need a province. He did not run for the State Assembly. However, the voter support he received remained significant. According to the popular vote, the public support of the RSVP was not less than that of the Maoists. However, now the RSVP has not expressed any opinion against the state structure. He does not seem to be opposed to proportional representation. The candidate he selected for the House of Representatives and the winning parliament are also free from power and familyism than other parties.

Although the current constitution does not mention it directly, it has some key structural pillars. Republic, Federalism, Proportional Representation, Secularism and Inclusivity are the pillars which if thrown away, the founding value of this Constitution will not remain. But it doesn't mean that you don't have a critical view about them, you don't stir things up. Their purposeful practice, effective use and timely modification are always desirable. That is what keeps the constitution alive. Two examples are noteworthy here when it comes to constitutional practice. The United Kingdom of Great Britain, which does not have a written constitution, has an unbroken constitutional practice and tradition stretching back over three hundred years. In the United States, the Constitution, written two hundred and thirty-five years ago, is working. While during this period there has been an unprecedented change in the world including the society of those countries. But there is no need to change the constitution and system. Therefore, rather than what is written in the constitution, its spirit and progressive practice are important.

After the completion of the parliamentary elections in 2079, a participant on behalf of the UML said in the review program, 'We are preparing with the aim of removing the proportional share in the election of the House of Representatives and establishing a system where the person who gets the most votes wins.' The UML also wants to keep proportional representation in the National Assembly was heard Where did that preparation go, what is the official opinion of the UML party on the matter, has not been made public yet. Besides, there is a voice in the Congress that there should be no mixed system in the election of the House of Representatives and the proportional system should be removed. But there is no formal opinion about this even in the Congress. This time, a formal proposal was reached in the general committee that there should be no alliance in the election, and there was a heated debate on it.

The thing to consider is that, in the mixed election system adopted by our constitution, it is certain that no one party can get a majority. But the system of governance (executive) adopted by us is a parliamentary system based on the majority. When no party has a majority in Parliament, the Prime Minister must suffer from the fear of being removed at any time. On top of that, the change of chief minister four times in 6 months this time in Koshi province made the stability of the government even more complicated. We are of the opinion that how the Prime Minister/Chief Minister can confidently do good work by sitting in a position that is always in chaos. It is also natural. Our thinking is influenced by practices in the UK and India. Also, no party always has a majority in the FPTP. India had a hung parliament for a long time before the 2014 elections. There are many examples of hung parliaments in Britain. Even in Nepal, the hung parliament was formed in the mid-term elections of 2051. I don't see the possibility of removing the

proportional component from our electoral system. For that, the constitution should be amended. There is no political environment in which two-thirds majority can be easily obtained in the parliament for amendments. Madhes-centric parties including Janata Samajwadi and Janmat have no place to agree with this in principle. Even the Maoists find it difficult to agree to this. If the constitution is to be amended, proportionality can be reduced, not completely eliminated. It is not a group (cluster) of representation in proportion to the population like Khasarya, tribe, Madhesi as it is now, only a few seats can be kept proportionally for the unrepresented and very underrepresented communities. This matter will be discussed further.