Kathmandu: In July 2024, KP Sharma Oli, chair of Nepal’s second-largest party, the Communist Party of Nepal – Unified Marxist-Leninist (CPN-UML), joined hands with Nepali Congress to become Prime Minister for the fourth time, replacing Pushpa Kamal Dahal, chair of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre).
The alliance between Nepal’s two largest political forces, who dominate the federal parliament, has raised concerns over its potential to stifle democratic debate, weaken accountability, and consolidate power in the hands of a few.
Political analysts in Kathmandu had long expected the two parties to remain rivals, but the unexpected consolidation of power has left many wary.
“Normally, the two largest parties should not form a grand alliance,” observed Ajay Bhadra Khanal, political analyst and former Editor-in-Chief of The Himalayan Times. “Such alliances typically emerge when the largest party struggles to form a coalition with smaller parties or during times of national crisis,” he added. He cautioned that the risks of such grand coalitions are considerable. “Excessive concentration of power without transparency and proper checks and balances could distort the democratic system and weaken democratic institutions.”
In an effort to reassure the public, both parties unveiled a seven-point agreement, promising to create a national consensus government and push for constitutional amendments, that requires a two-thirds majority in both the House of Representatives and the National Assembly.
Nearly four months after the formation of the government, there has been little progress on either front. Further, neither party has disclosed which specific constitutional provisions they intend to amend.
Professor of political science Krishna Pokharel opines that the process of forming the current coalition is fundamentally flawed. “In a parliamentary system like ours, an alliance between the two largest parties is not viewed as a natural political development,” he said.
At the time of forming the new government, the Nepali Congress and CPN-UML claimed they wanted to end the situation where the third-largest party could repeatedly lead the alliance government. Professor Pokharel believes that the claim was a face-saving attempt by the Nepali Congress and CPN-UML to justify their decision to band together. In reality, however, neither party has shown any indication of moving away from their previous practices, he said. “Even now, the second-largest party is leading the government. This suggests not a commitment to course correction, but rather a continuation of political collusion and an extreme form of ongoing power-sharing among a few political elites.”
Initially, many believed that a lasting alliance between these two ideologically distinct parties would be short-lived. But to the contrary, Prime Minister Oli and Nepali Congress president Sher Bahadur Deuba have managed to demonstrate a surprising level of unity.
The alliance has raised fundamental concerns about whether the two leaders are genuinely working to strengthen governance or simply aiming to secure their positions within a political system that has long been criticized for corruption and poor service delivery. The current situation also raises the question: What are the underlying motivations that have brought Deuba and Oli together and fostered mutual appreciation between them?
Khanal sees the formation of the grand coalition as a response to the shifting political landscape, one that resists change and consolidates power. “The coalition also represents collusion of interests among top political leaders,” he said. “Given the entrenched kleptocratic system, the focus of top leaders at present is to maintain the kleptocracy and protect themselves from exposure.” According to him, this could be one of the major motivating factors for the grand alliance.
Amidst all the political twists and turns, the interests and aspirations of the people appear to be largely ignored. Instead, the centralization of power in the hands of the ruling parties, coupled up with a weakened opposition, has raised fears of a ‘spiral of silence’ in Nepal’s political landscape, where dissent is suppressed while accountability is eroded.
Further, there is a growing concern that the government could misuse its power to shield leaders from the ruling alliance from scrutiny and to cover up their past wrongdoings. In the past, when the Nepali Congress was in opposition, it was quick to accuse CPN-UML of being complicit in numerous high-profile corruption scandals. Similarly, CPN-UML, when out of power, had been a vocal critic of the Nepali Congress’s involvement in similar issues. However, now that both parties have formed an alliance, there is an unsettling silence on these matters. Many worry that the scandals they once condemned will go unaddressed, and that accountability may be permanently sidelined in the interests of political survival.
The weakness of the opposition only adds to these concerns. “With the two largest parties now aligned, the opposition bloc has been significantly weakened,” said Saugat Gautam, a political observer. The third largest party in parliament, the CPN (Maoist Centre), has lost public trust after repeatedly joining the government, leaving it with little credibility as an opposition force. Meanwhile, the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), which had gained popularity in the last elections, is struggling to reorganize itself after the arrest of its leader, Rabi Lamichhane, on charges related to a cooperative scam.
Currently, Madhes-based parties are unable to unite, while other fringe parties including Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) have yet to become fully institutionalized.
In an apparent effort to preempt potential backlash and criticism against the government, both parties recently agreed to establish a two-party political mechanism, led by PM Oli, and Deuba. While the mechanism lacks legal grounds, it may hold significant political weight. It comprises eight key members—four from each party—including senior office bearers. A similar body is said to be established at the provincial and local levels, including in Bagmati Province.
Analysts suggest that the formation of this mechanism serves more than just the goal of better governance. Many see this as a calculated attempt by the party leadership to silence internal critics.
For instance, Gagan Thapa, general secretary of Nepali Congress, who had positioned himself as a vocal critic within his own party and the government until recently, is now a member of the mechanism. By including him in this body, both Oli and Deuba may have strategically sought to silence his [Thapa] voice against the government. A similar strategy could be at play within CPN-UML as well as it is clear that no leader can effectively criticize the government while being part of such a mechanism.
Taking advantage of the current political climate, influential leaders from both parties have been actively advocating for the establishment of a two-party system in Nepal. However, they overlook the fact that such a system should be established through political processes, not by forcibly restricting smaller and newer parties.
A two-party system only works when the largest parties earn public trust, making people less likely to seek alternatives, Pokharel told The DMN News. “In our case, however, those in power are pushing for this system out of fear of losing their political dominance. Given that our constitution guarantees multiparty democracy, this approach is far from rational.”
If this push succeeds, it would significantly benefit the entrenched political forces and their leaders, further consolidating their control over the political landscape and marginalizing smaller parties and emerging political movements.
“Such a move could undermine democratic values, and marginalize smaller political forces,” Gautam warned. “Parties must ensure open, transparent systems for intra-party democracy and allow lateral entry for new members before introducing the idea of a two-party system.”
All these developments raise a question: What does this consolidation of power mean for Nepal’s democratic trajectory? With the opposition fragmented and unable to mount a serious challenge, there is a growing concern that the current political setup may marginalize smaller parties, stifling diversity and pluralism.
Despite these concerns, the two largest parties remain steadfast in their pursuit of power.
Khanal is deeply skeptical of their ability to deliver on the public aspirations for better governance and economic development. “This grand coalition represents the collusion of vested interests in favor of crony capitalism and kleptocracy,” he claimed.
The alliance between Nepali Congress and CPN-UML may seem politically advantageous for the moment, but its long-term impact on Nepal’s democracy remains uncertain.
If these two dominant parties fail to address the aspirations of the people—particularly in areas like employment and public services—there is a real risk of deepening disillusionment and frustration among the population.
“In such a scenario, the only way out would be through a disruptive political event,” Khanal said.
“A new political force could rise on the wave of public frustration, or a civil society movement could direct the people’s aspirations. But given the present scenario in Nepal, where new parties are flawed and the civil society is divided, there is an equal chance that people’s growing disenchantment could lead to spontaneous protests and political instability.”
For now, Nepal’s political landscape remains as uncertain as ever. While the ruling parties hold the reins of power, it remains to be seen whether they will set a new standard for development and service delivery, or focus fully on consolidating power that could lead to a new era of political dominance and tyranny.
Comment