Submit your Article

Stato-dynamic progressivism, a term derived from the words ‘stato’ (state or stability) and ‘dynamic’ (force or movement), refers to a political and social theory that advocates for a progressive approach within the framework of institutional stability. Unlike traditional progressivism, which may prioritize rapid social change and reform, stato-dynamic progressivism seeks to balance progress with the preservation of order, institutions and systems of governance. This theory suggests that meaningful progress occurs when institutions evolve in response to societal needs while maintaining continuity with their foundational principles.

Background

The concept of stato-dynamic progressivism is rooted in the philosophical traditions of both conservative and progressive thoughts. It synthesizes aspects of classical conservatism—emphasizing the preservation of social institutions—and progressivism, which advocates for reforms to address inequality, injustice and social stagnation. This blend positions stato-dynamic progressivism as a centrist ideology, believing that reforms should be evolutionary rather than revolutionary.

Historically, thinkers like Edmund Burke, often regarded as a father of modern conservatism, argued that change should be organic and incremental to prevent the destabilization of society. Stato-dynamic progressivism aligns with this view, but also acknowledges the need for continuous reform, drawing from the progressivism of John Stuart Mill, who advocated for the expansion of individual rights and social reforms through democratic means.

Principles

Stato-dynamic progressivism operates on several key principles:

1. Institutional stability and reform: Central to this ideology is the belief that institutions—political, economic and social—should be respected and maintained. However, stato-dynamic progressivists argue that these institutions must be adaptable and responsive to new challenges, including inequality, discrimination, and environmental degradation. For example, instead of dismantling established systems of governance, reforms are made within them to ensure they better serve the public.

2. Balanced change: Change is necessary for societal progress, but it must be balanced with the preservation of traditions and values. Stato-dynamic progressivism avoids the radicalism of rapid reform movements, fearing that such changes could lead to instability, backlash or unintended consequences. It favors a gradual approach, where changes are implemented in phases, allowing society to adjust and institutions to absorb new responsibilities.

3. Democratic participation: A fundamental tenet is the belief in democratic participation. Stato-dynamic progressivists emphasize the role of the public in guiding institutional reforms. Policies should emerge through democratic dialogue, ensuring that change is representative of the people's will and not imposed top-down by elites.

4. Pragmatism over ideology: Stato-dynamic progressivism is pragmatic in its approach to policy-making. Rather than being driven by ideological purity, it focuses on what works, often advocating for evidence-based policy decisions. This pragmatism makes it more flexible in dealing with complex issues like economic inequality, climate change and social justice, allowing for the adoption of policies from across the political spectrum if they can contribute to societal well-being.

Application

In today’s political environment, stato-dynamic progressivism may be seen as a middle path between populism and radical progressivism. It appeals to those who are dissatisfied with the rapid pace of change promoted by some progressive movements but are equally uncomfortable with reactionary or regressive policies that seek to halt or reverse progress.

In the context of healthcare reform, for instance, a stato-dynamic progressivist might advocate for expanding access to healthcare through reforms within the existing system, such as expanding public healthcare options or reforming private insurance practices, rather than endorsing a complete overhaul to a single-payer system. The goal is to improve the system progressively without dismantling what works.

In the case of environmental policy, stato-dynamic progressivism might push for comprehensive climate action through the enhancement of regulatory frameworks and incentives for green technologies, rather than radical economic changes that could disrupt the livelihood of communities dependent on traditional industries.

Criticisms

Despite its appeal as a centrist ideology, stato-dynamic progressivism faces several criticisms. Critics from the left argue that it is too cautious, often failing to meet the urgency of crises like climate change, racial injustice or income inequality. The gradualist approach can seem inadequate in the face of problems that require immediate, large-scale action. From the right, critics may argue that even incremental reforms can erode the traditional values and institutions that they seek to protect, fearing a slippery slope toward more radical change.

Moreover, the balance between stability and progress can be difficult to maintain. In periods of rapid technological, economic or cultural transformation, even incremental changes can create significant disruption. The risk, critics suggest, is that stato-dynamic progressivism could become too focused on institutional preservation at the expense of needed reforms, leading to stagnation.

Conclusion

Stato-dynamic progressivism represents a nuanced and balanced approach to societal reform. By emphasizing the need for change within the stability of existing institutions, it provides a framework for progress that avoids the risks of both radicalism and conservatism. While it may be criticized for its cautious approach, particularly in times of crisis, its focus on gradual, democratic and pragmatic reforms makes it a compelling vision for those seeking sustainable progress without the upheavals of radical social change.

In the dynamic realm of Nepali politics, coalition governments have become commonplace rather than rare. Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s current predicament, preparing for his fifth vote of confidence on 12 July 2024, highlights the intricate interplay of power dynamics, alliances and political strategies.

Pushpa Kamal Dahal initially secured 268 votes out of 270 MPs in the House of Representatives on 10 Jan 2023, with the backing of the CPN-UML, marking his second successful confidence vote since taking office. However, on 20 March 2023, he garnered support from 172 out of 262 MPs after switching allegiance to the Nepali Congress.

In his third confidence vote on 13 March 2024, Dahal received 157 votes out of 268 MPs present, following his return to the CPN-UML from the Nepali Congress camp. Most recently, on 20 May 2024, Dahal gained backing from 157 MPs out of 158, with the entire opposition absent. This vote took place in the 275-member House of Representatives, where one member abstained, and none voted against the motion.

Members of the main opposition Nepali Congress, the largest party in the lower house, did not participate in the voting due to ongoing protests within the House. His fifth vote of confidence on July 12 underscores the ongoing challenges and strategic maneuvers in Nepal’s evolving political landscape. It is anticipated that Dahal may receive no more than 63 votes in this fifth exercise of confidence since 26 March  2022.

A recurring saga

Since assuming office, PM Dahal has piloted through multiple votes of confidence, each a testament to the fragility of political alliances and the quest for stability in Nepal’s governance. His tenure began with a significant mandate, securing 268 out of 270 votes in the House of Representatives on 10 Jan 2023. Subsequent votes have showcased varying levels of support, reflective of the shifting sands of Nepali politics.

In the Parliament, the Nepali Congress holds 88 seats, CPN-UML has 79 seats and the Prime Minister’s CPN-MC, the third-largest party in the House, has 32 seats. Rastriya Swatantra Party with 21 members stands as the fourth largest party. Despite this, the Dahal government has fallen into a minority position after losing support from the largest party in the coalition. With a total of 275 seats in the House of Representatives, a majority requires 138 votes.

His fifth vote of confidence underscores the ongoing struggle to maintain a cohesive coalition amidst growing dissent and opposition calls for resignation. Despite calls from both the Congress and UML to step down and allow for a potential leadership transition, PM Dahal has opted to exercise his constitutional right to seek validation from the House.

Political opportunism

Political opportunism in Nepal’s context often revolves around the strategic maneuvering of parties and leaders to capitalize on emerging opportunities and alliances. PM Dahal’s tenure epitomizes this, as his ability to secure votes of confidence has relied heavily on navigating the complex web of coalition politics rather than outright majority support.

Prospects and challenges

Looking ahead, Nepal faces significant challenges in achieving political stability and effective governance. The reliance on coalition governments, while often necessary to accommodate diverse political interests, can hinder long-term policy implementation and governance continuity. PM Dahal’s tenure serves as a case study in managing these complexities, where each vote of confidence becomes not just a procedural exercise but a reflection of broader political dynamics and aspirations.

As Nepal prepares for yet another pivotal vote of confidence under PM Dahal’s leadership, the nation watches closely. The outcome will not only determine the immediate future of the government but also set the tone for Nepal’s ongoing quest for political stability and effective governance amidst a backdrop of coalition complexities and shifting alliances.

While coalition governments are a testament to Nepal’s vibrant democracy, they also highlight the challenges of political opportunism and the delicate balance of power that defines the country’s political landscape. As PM Dahal seeks to secure his mandate once again, the implications resonate beyond mere numbers, encapsulating the hopes and aspirations of a nation in search of sustainable governance.

Nepal’s political history has been turbulent, defined by seismic shifts and the transformative rise of the Maoist movement spearheaded by Pushpa Kamal Dahal, also known as Dahal. Emerging in the 1990s, the Maoist insurgency fused Marxist-Leninist ideology with a fervent call for socio-economic reform in one of the world’s poorest nations. Under Dahal’s leadership, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) launched a protracted guerrilla war aimed at toppling the monarchy and establishing a republic. This uprising, lasting over a decade, plunged Nepal into widespread violence and instability, fundamentally challenging the entrenched power structures of the monarchy and the established political order.

By the mid-2000s, amidst mounting national and international pressure, the Maoists engaged in peace negotiations with the government, culminating in the landmark Comprehensive Peace Accord of 2006. This agreement marked a pivotal moment, ending the armed conflict and opening the door for the Maoists to transition into mainstream politics. In 2008, Nepal abolished its centuries-old monarchy and embraced a federal democratic republic, with Dahal assuming the mantle as the country’s first Prime Minister under the new constitutional framework.

However, the journey from insurgency to governance proved arduous for the Maoist party, now rebranded as the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Center). The transition was fraught with internal strife, ideological divisions, and the daunting task of delivering on promises made during the insurgency era. Despite initial hopes of ushering in profound social justice and economic prosperity, Dahal’s leadership faced criticism for perceived compromises and shortcomings.

The Maoist Center’s decline as a political powerhouse can be attributed to several factors. The party struggled to effectively address the socio-economic grievances that initially fueled its rebellion, leading to a gradual erosion of popular support. Internal power struggles and factionalism further undermined its organizational coherence and electoral prospects. Allegations of corruption and a perceived drift toward authoritarianism tarnished the party’s image, exacerbating its challenges on the political stage.

In recent years, the Maoist party, under Dahal’s continued leadership, has experienced diminishing electoral success. The 2017 parliamentary elections saw significant losses for the party, signaling a declining influence and support base among Nepali voters. This setback has been compounded by the emergence of new political dynamics and the rise of competing parties, relegating the Maoists from their once-dominant position in Nepal’s political landscape.

The trajectory of Nepal’s Maoist movement illustrates the intricate dynamics of revolutionary ideologies transitioning into the realm of governance. While the Maoists played a pivotal role in reshaping Nepal’s political fabric and dismantling the monarchy, their journey has been marred by internal discord, ideological challenges and the pragmatic realities of governance.

As Nepal continues its democratic evolution, the legacy of the Maoist movement remains intertwined with the nation’s history, offering poignant lessons on the complexities of revolutionary change and the enduring quest for socio-economic transformation in a diverse and evolving society.

Democracy in South Asia faces critical challenges that jeopardize its very essence. From India to Pakistan, Nepal to Bangladesh, democratic principles are under siege as political actors employ various strategies—persuasion, monetary influence, punishment, and division—to achieve their goals. This article delves into the precarious state of democracy in the region, where traditional strategies outlined in Chanakya's Arthashastra—Sām (persuasion), Dām (monetary influence), Daṇḍ (punishment), and Bhed (division)—are increasingly prevalent.

Rise of populism and infodemic

Sām, once pivotal in democratic discourse, has been overshadowed by populism and demagoguery. Leaders manipulate rhetoric and propaganda via social media, blurring the line between persuasion and manipulation. The misuse of media platforms during elections amplifies misinformation, exacerbating communal tensions and undermining electoral integrity.

In the bustling streets of South Asian cities, amidst the clamor of election campaigns, a significant concern emerges: The infodemic. As political parties compete for power and influence, the misuse of media and social media platforms has become a potent tool in their arsenal, shaping public opinion and eroding the credibility of the electoral process.

The rise of populism and demagoguery has overshadowed the once-central role of persuasion in democratic discourse. Political leaders exploit rhetoric and propaganda to sway public sentiment, leveraging the pervasive reach of social media. During South Asian elections, the manipulation of media platforms shapes narratives, undermining the integrity of the electoral process. Misinformation proliferates rapidly online through fake accounts and sensationalist content, exacerbated by biased reporting in traditional media outlets. This phenomenon, often termed an "infodemic," fuels societal divisions.  

Dām: Corrupting influence of money

Dām, characterized using monetary power, has deeply infiltrated South Asia's political terrain, fostering an environment where corruption and cronyism thrive. Wealthy elites and influential interest groups wield disproportionate sway over policymaking and governance, exacerbating inequality and marginalizing disadvantaged communities. This commodification of democracy, where votes are traded like commodities, undermines the foundational principles of equality and fairness that democracy strives to uphold.

The pervasive influence of Dām, or monetary power, in South Asian politics fuels corruption and cronyism, allowing wealthy elites and interest groups to manipulate governance, exacerbating inequality, and disenfranchising marginalized communities. 

Daṇḍ: Punishment for adversaries

Despite attempts to utilize punishment to quell dissent, journalists, activists, and political dissidents continue to face harassment, violence, and imprisonment, eroding both freedom of expression and the rule of law. Nevertheless, grassroots movements and civil society organizations persist in their steadfast resistance, championing transparency and accountability. They represent a beacon of hope for a future where democracy prevails over authoritarianism.

It is evident that those in power spare no effort to punish their adversaries, who fall out of favor. This trend is increasingly prevalent in countries like India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, as well as in Nepal, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives. Such unwarranted harassment of opponents undermines the foundational principles of democracy, where freedom of speech and the ability to criticize are fundamental to a democratic society.

Bhed: Exploiting divisions

Politicians exploit societal faultlines—religious, ethnic, linguistic—to consolidate power. Identity politics fuels social tension and communal violence, weakening societal cohesion and democratic foundations.

In the intricate tapestry of South Asian politics, the insidious strategy of Bhed (division) wreaks havoc on societal harmony. Exploiting faultlines along religious, ethnic, and linguistic boundaries, politicians employ identity politics to consolidate power and rally support. By capitalizing on existing prejudices and grievances, they deepen social tensions and ignite communal violence.

The ramifications of employing divisive strategies like Bhed are severe. Once united communities now find themselves divided, plagued by distrust where harmony once prevailed. Political figures exacerbate these divisions, eroding social cohesion and undermining the foundation of democracy.

The effects of Bhed extend beyond politics, fracturing families with sectarian conflicts, leaving neighborhoods scarred by ethnic tensions, and societies shattered by communal violence. Nevertheless, for those in authority, the tactic continues to yield results: Divide and rule. Recently, the fragmentation of political opponents' parties has become a common practice in India and Nepal. However, amidst these challenges, there is hope for a more inclusive future. Grassroots movements and civil society organizations tirelessly strive to bridge divides and promote understanding. By countering the narrative of division and advocating for unity in diversity, they offer a beacon of hope in a fractured world.

Conclusion

In South Asia’s intricate political landscape, the misuse of Sām, Dām, Daṇḍ and Bhed poses significant challenges. Upholding democratic values requires bolstering institutions, promoting transparency, and nurturing civic engagement. Civil society, media and vigilant citizens must unite to defend democracy against divisive tactics.

In conclusion, while South Asia confronts formidable democratic challenges, collective action can pave the way for a robust and inclusive democracy. By rejecting divisive strategies and upholding democratic principles, the region can forge a resilient path forward.

[email protected]

Kleptocracy, a term etched from the Greek lexicon, combining "kleptes" for thief and "kratos" for rule, paints a somber canvas of governance. It depicts a system where those in power exploit their positions for personal enrichment, draining public coffers through corruption and embezzlement. In Nepal, a nation grappling with persistent political instability and governance challenges, the specter of kleptocracy casts a long shadow, exacerbating social inequalities and impeding developmental progress. This exploration endeavors to dissect the complexities of kleptocracy and its profound impact within Nepal's tumultuous political landscape.

Understanding it 

Kleptocracy epitomizes a distortion of democratic ideals, where public trust is betrayed as officials accumulate wealth and power at the expense of citizens' welfare and national interest. Within such systems, political elites and their allies exploit state institutions and regulatory frameworks to drain public resources, evading accountability and fortifying their grip on power.

Nepal's vulnerability

Nepal's historical narrative, woven with threads of political instability and institutional fragility, provides fertile soil for the seeds of kleptocracy to take root. Rampant corruption and nepotism have entrenched themselves, corroding public trust in state institutions and eroding the foundations of the rule of law.

The nexus

The nexus between political instability and kleptocracy in Nepal is symbiotic, each reinforcing the other in a cycle of dysfunction. Frequent changes in government, protracted political standoffs, and fragmented party politics provide fertile ground for rent-seeking and misappropriation of state resources.

The impacts

Kleptocracy corrodes the fabric of Nepali society, stunting economic growth, exacerbating poverty and widening social disparities. Precious public resources meant for essential services are diverted into the coffers of the corrupt elite, perpetuating cycles of deprivation and disenfranchisement. Moreover, the erosion of trust in state institutions undermines efforts to foster democratic governance, risking perpetual instability and underdevelopment.

Economic crisis

Nepal, a nation ensconced in the heart of the Himalayas, has long been celebrated for its breathtaking vistas and rich cultural tapestry. Yet, beneath this picturesque facade lies a country teetering on the edge of economic collapse, its political foundations shaking. The roots of Nepal's economic malaise run deep, intertwining with systemic issues that have plagued the nation for decades.

Contributing factors

The journey toward Nepal's economic crisis can be traced through its turbulent past, marked by political upheaval, social disparity and natural calamities. The transition from monarchy to democratic republic in 2008 failed to usher in the desired stability and prosperity. Instead, Nepal has been marred by corruption, bureaucratic inertia and a lack of coherent economic policies.

Political Instability: Nepal's political landscape resembles a revolving door, with frequent changes in leadership causing policy inertia and uncertainty. This instability repels foreign investment, stymies economic growth and erodes public faith in the political establishment.

Corruption and governance issues: Corruption runs rampant across various strata of the Nepali society, impeding development endeavors and exacerbating income disparities. Weak governance structures have fostered an environment where corruption thrives, diverting vital resources away from essential public services and infrastructure projects.

Dependency on remittances: Nepal leans heavily on remittances from its vast migrant workforce, particularly those toiling in Gulf nations and Southeast Asia. While remittances have provided a lifeline for many Nepali families, they've also fostered a culture of dependency, stifling domestic entrepreneurship and innovation.

Natural disasters and climate change: Nepal's susceptibility to natural disasters, from earthquakes to floods, poses existential threats to its populace and infrastructure. Climate change compounds these challenges, jeopardizing agriculture, water resources, and overall sustainability.

Underdeveloped infra: Inadequate infrastructure, typified by subpar road networks and limited access to electricity and healthcare, stifles economic progress and hinders the delivery of essential services, particularly to rural communities. This infrastructure deficit deters investment and perpetuates regional disparities.

Economic crisis unfolds: In recent years, Nepal's economic woes have snowballed, culminating in soaring inflation, mounting unemployment and a widening fiscal chasm. The COVID-19 pandemic further exacerbated these vulnerabilities, dealing crippling blows to sectors like tourism and remittances. The resultant economic downturn has plunged many Nepalis deeper into poverty, stoking social unrest and disillusionment with the government's response.

Implications for the political system: The confluence of economic distress and political disenchantment has ignited widespread discontent and clamors for systemic reform. Dissatisfaction with the status quo has emboldened opposition factions and civil society groups, demanding accountability, transparency and substantive change. The fragility of Nepal's political institutions has been laid bare, evoking apprehensions of imminent collapse unless decisive action is taken to address the underlying crises.

The way forward

Resolving Nepal's economic quagmire and averting political meltdown necessitates multifaceted endeavors. Political leaders must prioritize stability and consensus-building, transcending partisan rifts to forge a trajectory toward inclusive growth and sustainable development. Strengthening governance frameworks, combating corruption and investing in critical infrastructure stand as imperatives for laying the groundwork for a resilient economy and a robust democratic ethos.

International collaboration and assistance can play pivotal roles in bolstering Nepal's recovery efforts, offering expertise, resources and investment avenues. However, genuine transformation can only materialize through domestic stakeholders' unwavering commitment to prioritizing Nepali interests above narrow political agendas.

In conclusion, Nepal finds itself at a crossroads, grappling with intertwined crises of economic distress and political uncertainty. The path ahead is fraught with obstacles, yet it is also brimming with opportunities for renewal and rejuvenation. By confronting its underlying challenges head-on and embracing a vision of inclusive and sustainable development, Nepal can emerge revitalized, resilient, and better poised to navigate the complexities of the 21st century.

[email protected]

Nepal's journey through democracy has been marked by the complex coalition politics in a hung parliament. This phenomenon, where no single party secures a majority, presents formidable obstacles to achieving sustainable development and effective governance.

Hung Parliament and Political Instability

The recurring hung parliament has been deeply woven into Nepal's democratic fabric. The nation’s multiparty landscape, encompassing diverse ideologies and regional interests, complicates the government formation process. Despite periods of single-party dominance since the political change of 1990, political maneuvering and dissent frequently lead to hung parliaments and subsequent instability.

Between November 1994 and May 1999, Nepal faced significant instability due to its first hung parliament. This led to the outbreak of decade-long Maoist insurgency. Although the insurgency ended with the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA) on November 21, 2006, political instability has persisted in the country.

The 1999 general election, held amidst the shadow of insurgency, saw the Nepali Congress secure a comfortable majority in parliament, winning 111 out of 205 seats. Despite this, the political instability continued in the country, marked by brief tenures of three prime ministers.

Following the signing of CPA, the 2008 general election elected the first Constituent Assembly tasked with drafting a new constitution. However, the Constituent Assembly lacked a single-party majority, with the Maoists securing 120 seats out of 240 under the first-past-the-post system. The proportional representation system, accounting for 335 seats, further complicated the Constituent Assembly's dynamics, leading to a hung assembly plagued by political maneuvering and ethical breaches.

Political instability persists in Nepal despite the eventual promulgation of the new constitution in 2015 by the second Constituent Assembly. The complexities of coalition politics, compounded by the governance and representation challenges, continue to shape the nation's democratic narrative to this day.

Causes of Political Instability

Proportional representation, which was introduced alongside the first-past-the-post system in Nepal's electoral system, aimed to foster inclusivity in the political landscape. However, this system has presented its own set of challenges for the country. Issues such as vote dispersion, coalition politics and regional dynamics have contributed to the complexity of governance. Additionally, criticisms of nepotism and electoral intricacies have exacerbated the situation.

Under the proportional representation system, 110 out of 275 seats in the House of Representatives are allocated based on the proportion of votes that political parties receive nationally or within specific electoral regions. This allows parties with significant overall support to secure representation in Parliament even if they do not win in individual constituencies.

The proportional representation system was introduced to address historical marginalization and ensure the representation of all segments of society in the legislative process. By providing a platform for smaller parties and minority groups, proportional representation aimed to enhance the inclusivity of Nepal's democracy. However, its implementation is becoming challenging due to concerns about political fragmentation, struggles with coalition governance, and allegations of nepotism in candidate selection 

After the recent general election, Nepal has seen another hung parliament. The trend of minority parties wielding disproportionate influence, alongside the perceived helplessness of larger parties, has disrupted democratic norms and contributed to economic setbacks in the country.

The Darker Side of Politics

The growing use of political influence to evade justice and perpetrate crime is a persistent challenge that plagues many societies. This issue arises when individuals or groups in positions of political power abuse their authority to manipulate legal processes, evade accountability and shield themselves or their associates from prosecution for criminal activities.

Interference in Legal Proceedings: Politically powerful individuals may exert pressure on law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, judges and other judicial bodies to manipulate investigations, delay legal proceedings, or influence judicial outcomes in their favor. This interference undermines the rule of law and erodes public trust in the justice system.

Corruption and Bribery: Politicians may engage in corrupt practices, such as bribery or extortion, to obstruct investigations, tamper with evidence, or secure favorable judgments. Corrupt alliances between politicians and criminal elements further exacerbate the problem, enabling organized crime networks to operate with impunity.

Political Patronage: Politicians may provide protection or patronage to criminal elements in exchange for political support, financial contributions or other benefits. This symbiotic relationship between politics and crime perpetuates a culture of impunity and undermines efforts to combat criminal activities.

Legal Loopholes and Immunity: Politicians may exploit legal loopholes or abuse their legislative powers to enact laws or policies that grant them immunity from prosecution or shield them from accountability for criminal behavior. This impunity emboldens individuals to engage in illicit activities without fear of consequences.

Manipulation of Public Perception: Politically influential individuals or their allies may attempt to manipulate public opinion through propaganda, misinformation, or media control to portray themselves as victims or deflect attention away from their criminal activities. This manipulation can undermine public awareness of the gravity of the crimes committed and impede efforts to hold perpetrators accountable.

Way Forward

It has become necessary to address the issue of hung parliament to ensure stable governance and democratic functioning in Nepal. One potential solution could involve reconsidering the electoral system, either adopting solely the first-past-the-post or proportional representation method. Maintaining both systems simultaneously risks perpetuating instability. Swift action is essential to mitigate the risks posed by hung parliaments before they escalate further. Remember, you cannot have your cake and eat it too.