There is a question that should be asked at the beginning - does the Congress and UML alliance still make sense? This question is important because we want results. Because, today we do not need a ruler who will run the country in the status quo, we need a result-oriented government that ensures the state's dynamism and innovation.

But the current coalition has broken its own commitment, promise and rationale. And, it is spinning like this in the status quo, from where it is nowhere to be seen . It has lost the political justification of coalition building and is further institutionalizing party divisions . The greater the alliance, the greater the crisis. So, either it should be reformed, otherwise it has no political meaning . We can't go ahead with Kimarth by maintaining such an alliance that has no political meaning and justification. 

Congress and UML are traditional rival parties in the democratic history of Nepal. At a special moment in history, they fought together for democracy. Their competition also played an important role in making democracy alive. And, it was also natural, because democracy cannot become strong and vibrant if parties lose political competition. Therefore, healthy, responsible and ideological competition between parties around the world is considered natural, while unnatural and meaningless alliances are considered unnatural. From this point of view, it is funny to hear UML and Congress forming alliance to run the power but it is a strange and undemocratic practice of democratic politics. 

We seem to have ignored five questions as this alliance is being built. First, in the name of stability of the government, would it be right to go against the basic principles of parliamentary democracy? Second, what are the contributions and losses of the coalition of two large and competing parties in parliamentary democracy in the current and long-term politics? Third, have we now reached a complex, transitional and crisis situation where two major parties must form a government? Fourth, if so, what are those crises and what is the common vision of the main parties to solve them? Fifth, do we need the stability of the government, the strengthening of democratic values, recognition and character? The level of debate that should have taken place on these questions when the current coalition was being formed never took place in the public sphere . These questions were not discussed because we were rather prepared to face a minor crisis, but the stability of the government was our desire.

It is obvious that, in the case of Nepal, such an alliance is usually seen only in times of crisis . Like after the people's movement of 2046 or after the second people's movement of 2062/63 . When general political consensus is needed for larger objectives, such as constitution-making or regime change, coalition governments are practiced around the world. But, what is the situation of such an infection now? We are still silent on this question. Otherwise, what was the big purpose of this alliance, for which the basic principles of parliamentary democracy become small. Because, we went towards the stability of the previous government . Our interest in the character of parliamentary democracy, its value and effective management did not go away. Let's think, in the name of finding a stable government, aren't we doing long-term damage to democracy? Keeping silent on this question was a huge weakness in our intellectual community and in the public sphere.

However, people were positive about this alliance for four reasons . First, the expectation of constitutional amendment . Even though the Constitution of Nepal 2072 implemented federalism, the demand for regional inequality, inclusiveness and reforms in the government system had been rising for a long time. People were dissatisfied and ownership of the constitution was not generally accepted. At this time, the alliance promised to address these issues through constitutional amendment. Which raised hope (with fear) especially in Madheshi, tribes and other marginalized communities. 

Second, good governance and government reform . In particular, people have been expecting a corruption-free, transparent and accountable administration for a long time. This coalition promised to take strict measures against corruption and establish the rule of law . Which aroused enthusiasm in the citizens . Thirdly, strengthening the government, increasing administrative agility and public participation excited many. Fourth, control over the partisanship of the state was another issue. And, it was expected to increase the independence and effectiveness of state organs.  

Generally speaking, people wanted that the magic of Maoist will be controlled by this alliance . And, the uncontrolled game of power will be stopped . Otherwise, the cycle of government formation and dissolution was discrediting democracy so much that it seemed to be shaming the system itself . The citizens wanted freedom from Prachanda's upheaval and the magic of numbers. The Palturam trend and the transaction of late power had to stop somewhere. That's why some people used to say - 'Congress and UML joining together is the least bad of the worst options to prevent the current state of politics from getting worse.' Lately, the third and fourth party's indecent satalipsa, stoppages and the tendency of the new so-called small parties to 'crack' have created an 'irritation' in politics. Therefore, giving the benefit of the doubt, citizens said that the latest alliance of Congress and UML should not become a spectacle of power. And, the alliance also responded to the general public and expressed its commitment to ensure stability in politics. 

was expected to open political knots especially with the two big parties . The general public seemed excited by the promise of the two major parties to amend the constitution and move forward by correcting the weaknesses of the government. Of course, it was not expected that this alliance would give long-term light . In fact, this alliance was just a new version of the old trend . That is, it was not a special, meaningful and dynamic political effort. But the citizens were looking for some difference in this and the future vision of fellow travelers of the people's movement. And that was its special meaning. In this sense, the main responsibility of this alliance was to deepen democracy, ensure result-oriented governance through government reforms, make provinces effective, remove the weaknesses of the constitution and make it more democratic, inclusive and deep. And, with the expectation that it would happen, he trusted this alliance with the benefit of doubt.  

But what happened? Has this alliance made any effort to fulfill its commitments? Did the tight knots in politics open ? Have any efforts been made to correct the governance weaknesses? It was expected that this alliance, made by ignoring the basic principles of parliamentary democracy, would give a very big result (greater than the damage). So did it make any attempt to fix the crises in politics and governance? I have to say with great disappointment, I didn't. On the contrary, it institutionalized party division in the same way. The government could not rise above the daily work . In particular, it forgot its own commitments and increased the risk of institutionalizing the past two-party ego. Neither the work of constitutional amendment went forward, nor the work of government reform was given priority . On the contrary, this alliance increasingly threatened to destroy the established norms of parliamentary democracy . The opposition weakened and the democratic balance was disturbed. The prime minister, who should be responsible himself, started mocking the questions of the citizens under the guise of the Congress. Thus, this alliance appeared as another big mistake of Nepali politics .

The promise of good governance given by the coalition was limited to slogans. Democratic institutions are made more weak . Party roles were blurred. The dictatorship became even deeper. That must be why, some within the Sahayatri party of the alliance said that this alliance is not the alliance of Congress and UML, but of KP Oli and Sher Bahadur Deuba . In which there is no energy, willpower and creative ability to fulfill the dreams of the citizens . Those who accuse more harshly say that this alliance is a ``Gorakh Danda'' of a handful of middlemen . To think that there is more than that is foolishness in itself.'  The

question comes, what is the alternative? Now at least the government is stable. Two topics are drawn from here. First, democracy is more important than government. Second, effective government is more important than stable government. Here stable government means a situation where the same party or coalition is in power for a long time . An effective government is a democratic, creative and just government capable of meeting the needs of the people . Let's consider, how long the government lasts is that important? Is the work of the government important? Needless to say, a stable government can be/is the root . A dynamic government is like a river flowing and flowing. Let's think, what do we need? A solid, stable and stable government or a liberal, democratic, dynamic and soft government? Let's say, we need a stable government . But what happens if the corrupt government is stable? What happens if a dictatorial government becomes stable?

Some people think that stability helps prevent the confusion and chaos that often occurs in politics. But this is misleading. Because democratic state structures, methods and systems prevent political chaos, chaos and instability, not government . So we are not looking for a stable government. is to find steady states, systems and structures . We seek stability of the system, responsive and effective government . We want to find the effectiveness of parliamentary democracy . Now what is the meaning of a stable government formed by weakening the basic life flow? In this way, looking for the stability of the previous government by making an unnatural alliance is an apolitical and undemocratic task in itself. Looking at the character of the government now, it seems that we have fallen in love with stability and are losing the effectiveness of democracy . It was not the right decision for us.

As far as options go, let's do four of these . First, let's accept the conclusion that this coalition has no business as it is. Second, either it must justify itself . For that, give it three months with certain conditions . Otherwise, let's move forward on the way to find a natural and legal solution. Thirdly, when it comes to legal options, naturally the articles of the constitution are attracted. In this, we have used a special article. And, our effort is a coalition government. But experience says, any coalition formed within the current parliamentary arithmetic will not give us new results. This failed experiment has been seen many times . So now you have to go to the new option . And, the new option means, the option of the largest party forming the government . Fourth, if the solution does not come out and the remaining options of the constitution are not effective, the parties should go for new elections. But the election should be such that the old leaders leave and new people come to the leadership with new hope, faith and ability.   

Some may think, election again? At least this parliament should be able to work full time ? But that's right, from where the knots of politics and politics are blown . Otherwise, it is just a waste of time to tighten knots that cannot be untied . Because, the question is not how to spend time ? The question is, how to reach the peak by running? Therefore, I suggest to the leaders of Congress and UML, think about whether we are falling prey to Oli and Deuba's lust for power. Otherwise, why stay with the status quo if this alliance will contribute nothing and the result will be even more counterproductive? Because, it is better to look for new possibilities than to waste time without results . And, it is clear, the elections will give us new possibilities . A possibility in which the citizens will be decisive. Because only the sovereign citizen has the inherent right to dissolve political complexity in a democracy. So let's say now, either give an effective government, or hold a new election. Because it's certain, we don't have long to wait .