Submit your Article

Will the incumbent coalition government remain intact till elections? All coalition partners confidently say, yes, it will. Are there any chances of an electoral alliance among coalition partners? On this question, coalition partners are not so sure. Sustainability of the incumbent government and a possible electoral alliance are two entirely different issues but often seen together.  

Being in the same government does not mean an automatic electoral alliance. For instance, in 2017, there was a coalition government of Nepali Congress (NC) and CPN (Maoist) but the latter still forged an electoral alliance with then opposition CPN-UML, in what came to be popularly known as the left alliance.

Now, it is an open secret that CPN (Maoist) Chair Pushpa Kamal Dahal wants an electoral alliance with Congress, like he did with KP Oli on the eve of previous elections. Likewise, Madhav Kumar Nepal, chairman of Nepal Communist Party (Unified Socialist), another ruling party, is ready for an alliance with Dahal but the latter believes that will be insufficient to win elections given the formidable strengths of Congress and UML. As the Maoists are weak in terms of organization and popular votes, Dahal has calculated that the party could face a drubbing without an electoral alliance.

Congress, mainly Prime Minister and Party President Sher Bahadur Deuba, has not spoken publicly about the possibility of an alliance with coalition partners. Party leaders say the issue is likely to be discussed in the party’s upcoming general convention. Says Nain Singh Mahar, a youth leader close to Deuba, NC could consider an alliance even though it is capable of winning elections on its own.

“Looking at things from the perspective of Congress, there is no need for an electoral alliance but if there is a guarantee of a long-term alliance, we could think about it,” says Mahar. For that, according to Mahar, Maoist chair Dahal must be ready to revisit his 2017 unceremonious turnaround and come up with a credible framework to ensure that there will be no similar break-up. Before the previous round of elections, Dahal had secretly negotiated a seat-sharing arrangement with UML Chairman Oli while he was still in a coalition government with Congress.  

Also read: Delhi undecided as Deuba seeks its blessings 

In the 2017 local elections, Congress had supported Renu Dahal for the post of mayor in Bharatpur sub-metropolitan city. With strong NC backing, Renu won as well. But this was followed by a strong backlash inside the Congress party, mainly after Dahal went on to align with UML.

Ideological differences also make it difficult for Congress to forge an electoral alliance with communist forces. Similarly, the Maoists have a history of violence, and local-level NC cadres are uncomfortable aligning with such a force. The long list of prospective NC candidates also makes it hard for the party to agree on a seat-sharing formula with another party. NC leaders are of the view that the party is capable of winning elections on its own. This is why leaders like Gagan Thapa and Arjun Narsingh KC have completely ruled out any kind of electoral alliance.  

“NC candidates are ready to lose but they do not want an alliance with other parties as they believe such an alliance will weaken their constituency,” says an NC leader requesting anonymity.

What could Dahal do if the NC rejects such an alliance? Will he again align with Oli? Given the growing animosity between Dahal and Oli, they are unlikely to forge an electoral alliance this time. But it cannot be ruled out because if there is no electoral alliance among big parties, the NC is likely to gain a lot. In that scenario, despite their differences, Oli, Dahal, and Nepal could come together to check the Congress party.

That is why PM Deuba and NC leaders want early elections. They believe animosity among communist parties will die down with time and they could again come together. China, which played a vital role in uniting UML and Maoists in 2017, is advising communist forces to come together this time as well. Though Dahal and Oli don’t see eye to eye, many second-rung UML leaders are still in favor of unity between communist forces in order to forge a powerful communist party.

Also read: Playing Squid Game in Nepal

Maoist leader Dev Prasad Gurung says it would be premature to talk of electoral alliance. The spirit is that the incumbent five-party alliance should be continued till elections, says Gurung. “Once the elections are announced, there will be discussions among the coalition partners on the possibility of an electoral alliance,” he says.

Similarly, the Nepal-led party is also angling for an electoral alliance. It is almost a given that there will be an electoral alliance between Nepal’s and Dahal’s parties as well as with other fringe communist parties. The Nepal-led party appears weak as influential second-rung UML leaders decided to remain with the mother party; of the elected UML representatives, only around 10 percent joined Nepal’s new party. So, for Dahal, even the support of the Nepal faction and other fringe parties is not sufficient to win the elections.

NCP (Unified Socialist) Central Committee member Shankar Bhandari is not hopeful of a large electoral alliance with Nepal Congress. He is of the view that there could rather be an alliance among his party, the Maoist party, the Janata Samajbadi Party led by Upendra Yadav, and other fringe communist outfits. “But there will be some seat-sharing with NC to ensure the victory of top coalition leaders,” he says. Nepal has already started consultations with left parties.

Political analyst Bishnu Dahal subscribes to Bhandari’s views. The NC could field weak candidates in the constituencies of Nepal, Dahal, or other senior leaders to ensure their victory. But the chances of an out-and-out electoral alliance are slim, says the analyst. “There is little chemistry between Maoist and Congress cadres at grass-roots level, which was evident when NC decided to support Renu Dahal in the 2017 elections,” he says. “NC and communist parties see each other as class enemies and their relations at the grass-roots level are poor. This means a larger poll alliance may not be feasible but there can still be some kind of collaboration to keep the coalition intact.” 

The terms of the federal parliament, provincial assemblies, as well as the local governments expire next year. Growing debates in political circles on a possible ‘electoral alliance’ and ‘early elections’ of the House of Representatives (HoR) show that parties are already in an election-mode. They have started nationwide campaigns to strengthen their organizations, targeting the upcoming three-tier elections.

If things go as planned, local elections will take place first, to be followed by provincial and federal elections. Though the exact dates are yet to be finalized, sooner or later, the country will head to elections. Here is an explainer on how local, provincial and federal elections will take place.

Who declares the date of local-level elections?

As per Local Election Act 2017, the government is mandated to announce the date for local elections in consultation with the Election Commission. The government can choose to hold elections in multiple phases if they cannot be held in a single phase. At the local level, the first-past-the-post (FPTP) election model is applied for holding elections.  

How long is the tenure of local elected bodies?

The tenure of the village and municipal assemblies is five years. Article 225 of the constitution says: “The term of a Village Assembly and a Municipal Assembly shall be of five years from the date of the election. Another Village Assembly and Municipal Assembly shall be elected not later than six months of the expiration of such a term.”

The first local elections under the new constitution were conducted in 2017 in three phases (on May 14, June 28, and September 18). According to election experts, if there are to be multi-phase elections, the date for the first phase would determine the tenure of local bodies. So, ideally, the elections for local governments must take place within May-June next year. Even if parties choose to hold local level elections six months after their current term expires, local elections must take place by next August at the latest.

What about elections of provincial assemblies?

The provincial assemblies are unicameral and the numbers of provincial lawmakers vary from province to province. Unless dissolved earlier pursuant to the constitution, the term of the provincial assemblies is five years. Their term may be extended for a period not exceeding one year in cases where a proclamation or order of the state of emergency is in effect. As provincial assembly elections were held simultaneously with the federal elections in 2017, their tenure also expires in 2022. Under the FPTP component, twice as many members are elected to provincial assemblies as are elected to the federal House of Representative. 60 percent provincial assembly seats are filled through FPTP elections and 40 percent through PR elections. 

Also read: Delhi undecided as Deuba seeks its blessings 

And when are the federal parliament elections?

The House of Representatives and the National Assembly make up the Federal Parliament. On the term of the HoR, Article 85 of the constitution says, “Unless dissolved earlier, the term of the House of Representatives shall be of five years.” The previous federal and provincial elections took place in two phases in November and December 2017. So, the tenure of the incumbent parliament will be valid till December 2022, if the parliament is not dissolved earlier. After the completion of the five-year term, the federal parliament will get dissolved. As the constitution has not envisioned a parliamentary vacuum of over six months, elections for the federal parliament will have to take place within six months of December 2022.

Who declares the date for elections to the federal House of Representatives?

The government announces the date of the elections to the House of Representation in consultation with the Election Commission. The government can hold elections in multiple phases citing logistical and security issues. But the government must consult the commission before announcing federal elections.

What about the National Assembly?

The National Assembly is a permanent House that consists of 59 members, each with a six-year term. The term of office of one-third of the members of the National Assembly expires every two years. The election of NA will take place after the elections of local, provincial, and federal levels.

Are there any chances that elections to the parliament, provincial and local governments will take place simultaneously?

There is an ongoing debate on the possibility of holding simultaneous elections. However, parties are yet to begin deliberation over such a proposal. To conduct simultaneous elections, the law needs to be changed. For one, simultaneous elections will reduce electoral costs. Former Election Commission Commissioner Dolakh Bahadur Gurung says simultaneous elections are a good idea if all parties are on the same page. Towards this end, Gurung says legal arrangements must be accompanied by a huge exercise in arranging logistics.

Also read: Nepal’s decennial census needs a rethink

Should the Election Commission be allowed to announce the date of elections?

Right now only the government holds the right to announce the dates for elections. For a long time, the Election Commission has been making a case for its right to do so. According to former commissioner Gurung, giving the commission such a mandate will ensure timely elections. As the government has the right to announce dates, the ruling parties right now tend to declare elections as per their convenience.

Are there any chances of a change in our electoral system?

In the last election, a mixed electoral system—first-past-the-post and proportional representation (PR)—was adopted. But debate has already begun about changing it. Ruling coalition partner CPN (Maoist) has proposed a completely proportional election system. Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal has been saying that elections are becoming too costly and a complete PR system is the only solution. The Maoist party also fears losing elections if the FPTP component is high. In any case, Nepali Congress and CPN-UML are unlikely to accept such a proposal.

Are there any chances of early elections?

There are divergent views among political parties on early elections. The main opposition CPN-UML is in favor because it wants to justify KP Oli’s House dissolution and call for elections.

Inside Nepali Congress, there are strong voices in favor of early elections for the federal parliament. NC leaders believe that if local elections are held first, federal elections could be affected because of the ensuing factional feuds and chances of intra-party betrayal. Local-level leaders who lose elections are unlikely to support rival-faction candidates in federal elections. However, coalition partners CPN (Maoist) and CPN (Unified Samajwadi) led by Madhav Kumar Nepal are against early elections as they are both in party-building phase. 

Did India provide a safe haven to Nepali Maoists or was it always intent on crushing them with brute force? The Maoists have maintained that during the insurgency they were hiding in India and the Indian establishment didn’t support them in any way. Their critics pooh-pooh the notion that top Maoist leaders from Nepal could have lived and moved about freely there without the knowledge of the vast Indian government apparatus. This query is of more than academic interest. As CPN (Maoist) Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal has pointed out, on it hinges the question of success (or failure) of Nepal’s ‘homegrown’ Maoist movement.

Former Indian Ambassador to Nepal Ranjit Rae infers in his new book ‘Kathmandu Dilemma’ that the Indian government provided no support to the Nepali Maoists living in India. India, apparently, didn’t even know of the Maoist existence in its midst. If anything, India saw the Maoists as a threat, not the least because of its own growing Naxalite problem. Particularly in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, it viewed them more and more as terrorists, just like the US and the UK did. Only after King Gyanendra assumed executive powers in a coup did the Indians rethink their Maoist policy.  

As Rae writes in his book, following the coup, the opinion in India was divided between those who were still intent on decimating the Maoists by strengthening Nepal Army (IB, Indian Army) and those who believed a peaceful way out was the only durable solution (MEA, RAW). One thing is for sure: Had the Indians decided to crush the Maoist rebellion, they could have done so. Even if the Indian establishment didn’t actively support the Maoist leaders waging a war in Nepal from India, they tolerated their existence. Or at least a part of the establishment did.  

Also read: Diplomatic License | Playing Squid Game in Nepal

The Indian security establishment and sections of the bureaucracy wanted to use the presence of the Nepali Maoists in India as a bargaining chip against the royal regime, the ultimate goal being to maintain a semblance of ‘controlled instability’ in Nepal so that India could continue to play within it. 

Perhaps with more high-level political engagement between the two countries, the Maoists wouldn’t have been so successful in orchestrating the insurgency from foreign soil. Unlike the erstwhile Nepali Congress leaders living in exile in India in the 1940s or 1950s, the Maoist leadership in the early 2000s didn’t have extensive engagement with the Indian leaders. Without such political connections, to keep themselves safe, they had to rely on the Indian bureaucrats and spies who came in their contact.  

Moreover, as prime minister, neither Atal Bihari Vajpayee nor Manmohan Singh seemed interested in cementing political ties with Kathmandu. Neither came to Nepal on a bilateral visit during their long tenures (although Vajpayee did come in 2002 for the SAARC summit). As political engagement broke down, interference from Indian security agencies and bureaucrats, who found themselves in charge of India’s Nepal policy by default, increased. In return for providing a safe haven to Maoist leaders, they wanted a greater say in Nepal’s affairs.

In fact, a big challenge in resetting Nepal-India bilateral relations continues to be the multiplicity of Indian foreign policy actors—often working in cross-purposes. As the attention of the political leadership of a rising India continues to shift to big actors, perhaps this will continue to be the fate of smaller countries in the region.  

In the first week of October, a Nepali Congress team led by former foreign minister Prakash Sharan Mahat visited New Delhi at the invitation of India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Udaya Shumsher Rana and Ajaya Kumar Chaurasiya were the other two team members. 

For public consumption, the visit was said to be a part of an ongoing party-to-party exchange between the NC and the BJP. But according to sources, Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba had dispatched the trio to explain to the Indian establishment his plan to contest elections for a second term as party president. 

The three leaders visiting India are close confidants of PM Deuba. The visiting team didn’t have anyone from the rival factions of the Nepali Congress. Deuba did not discuss with other leaders the purpose of the visit either.  

According to Chaurasiya, the talks with Indian leaders and officials focused on two broad areas: strengthening government-to-government ties, and increasing interactions/exchanges between the NC and the BJP. “We conveyed PM Deuba’s message to the Indian leaders that he wants to maintain good rapport with the Indian government and the BJP,” Chaurasiya told ApEx. “The Indian side also conveyed its message that the government led by Narendra Modi wants to build a good relationship with the government as well as PM Deuba, who is also the party president.” 

A senior Congress leader in frequent touch with the Indian establishment says NC leaders considered close to India have deserted the Deuba camp and this has added to his worries ahead of the party elections. “PM Deuba wants to secure India’s support for his candidacy, but this time India has remained mum and not supported any specific leader,” says the leader requesting anonymity. He says this time India is unlikely to throw its weight behind any candidate. It is also not clear whether the Indian bureaucracy and the BJP are on the same page on how to approach the NC’s convention and a possible change in leadership. 

Also read: How and when will the three-tier elections be held?

Bimalendra Nidhi, a long-time confidant of Deuba, has announced plans to contest the party presidency. Shekhar Koirala, who maintains good rapport with the Indian leadership, is also in the fray. This creates additional challenges for Deuba. 

NC leaders say neither internal party dynamics nor the external environment is in Deuba’s favor this time, and he is desperate to have New Delhi’s support. During their visit, the NC team met senior BJP leaders, Minister for External Affairs S Jaishankar, and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Aditya Nath. According to the Congress leader, the issue of NC general convention also figured during these meetings. 

In the third week of August, BJP foreign affairs department chief Vijay Chauthaiwale had visited Kathmandu at Mahat’s invitation. He met PM Deuba and other senior leaders. Ever since the formation of the Deuba government, a team of NC leaders has been relentlessly working to mend ties with New Delhi through engagements with the bureaucracy as well as members of the ruling BJP.    

Not only those close to Deuba, others such as Bimalendra Nidhi, Shashank Koirala, Shekhar Koirala, and Prakash Man Singh have also tossed their hats in the ring in the race for party presidency. 

This week Shashank Koirala visited Bombay and New Delhi. Koirala met some BJP leaders to seek their advice and support for his bid. “Though senior leader Ram Chandra Poudel has announced his candidacy for the presidency, it is likely to boil down to a Deuba vs Koirala [Shekhar or Shashank] fight,” says another Congress leader, also requesting anonymity.  

Arun Subedi, a political and foreign policy expert, says the traditional relationship between the two countries means the Indian factor is always influential inside the NC, especially during the general convention. Whatever NC leaders may say for public consumption, all leadership aspirants secretly seek India’s support, Subdei adds, PM Deuba being no exception. 

Also read: Nepal’s decennial census needs a rethink

Deuba is equally worried about India’s reluctance to roll out the red carpet for him in New Delhi. In the past, India used to invite the Nepali PM as soon as he took charge. But this time, India is yet to send a formal invite. The delay in the visit has been partially attributed to NC’s internal political mess.

This time, Deuba’s first foreign visit is to Scotland to take part in COP26, where he is  expected to meet his Indian counterpart Modi on the sidelines of the conference. Deuba is also likely to pay an official visit to India after returning from Glasgow. 

Though the meetings of bilateral mechanisms between the two countries are taking place regularly and some connectivity projects are making progress, Deuba is not confident that New Delhi is fully backing his government. 

In June this year, in a veiled reference to India, five former prime ministers including Deuba had cautioned against external influence in the country’s internal affairs. Party leaders say it was Deuba’s mistake to join forces with four prime ministers to issue the statement, which irked India. New Delhi is reportedly unhappy with Deuba over some issues. 

Analyst Subedi’s understanding is that an environment of trust is yet to be established between the Deuba-led government and India. “Bureaucratic-level engagements don’t produce sustainable relations. Deuba doesn’t have any foreign affairs advisors to take matters beyond the bureaucracy,” Subedi says. “The foreign ministers have been unable to mend and maintain ties with India. This failure to create an environment of trust is good neither for Nepal nor India.” 

In his recent book Political Changes in Nepal and Bhutan (Emerging Trends in Foreign Policy in Post 2008 Period), Nihar R Nayak, a research fellow at the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, observes: “Even after 70 years of diplomatic history, regime security has remained a key determinant of Nepal’s foreign policy. The new governments in Kathmandu give priority to win the goodwill of neighboring countries, especially India.”