A new ray of collaborative politics has illuminated the political horizon of Nepal with the members of the coalition government agreeing to go for a poll alliance in the forthcoming local elections.

Their desire was for a centrally-controlled coalition, but after opposition from Shekhar Koirala, who enjoys significant support in the Nepali Congress, it was toned down to an electoral alliance.

The responsibility for the finalisation of the list of candidates has also been given to the local mechanism consisting of the district presidents. The apex body will now focus on the candidates of the metropolitan cities as well as those decidedly undecided in the local level.

Accordingly, a preparation and monitoring committee has been formed under the leadership of septuagenarian but energetic and never say tired senior leader Ram Chandra Poudel of the Nepali Congress with participation of leaders from all the coalition partners. Though this committee faced criticism soon after it came out of its cocoon, labelling it unconstitutional, it immediately took to the task in hand.

It had sent a notice to the district alliance to send the nomination of the candidates by the middle of this week. But it has not yet been received despite extending it for the second time till last weekend.

Political alliance is easily said but difficultly done.

The problems arise mostly on two fronts, firstly, the distribution of the seats and, secondly, the post of the mayor in the municipalities and that of the chairperson in the rural municipalities in particular.

While the Nepali Congress understandably seeks to fight for majority of the seats as the leader of the coalition, the other partners - the Maoist Centre (MC), the Unified Socialists (US), the Janata Samajbadi Party (JSP) and the Lilliputian Jana Morcha Nepal (JPN) - are also claiming for as many seats as possible.

Regarding the number of seats, the example of India could be an eye opener. It can be seen that the Bharatiya Janata Party has always kept a major slice for itself.

In the year 2019, it contested for 437 seats while the allies vied for 106 seats, which is a little more than 25 per cent.

The Indian Congress also enjoyed a bigger share in this election. This party competed for 421 seats while the allies fought for 111 seats, or about 25 per cent of the seats. This works out to a proportion of 75 per cent to 25 per cent.

This distribution pattern has been retained more or less irrespective of the loss in the last election. For example, the Indian Congress had contested in 421 seats in 2019 despite winning only 44 seats in the 2014 election.

The question arises regarding the number of seats that the Madhav Nepal-led US should be allocated on its own and as a coalition candidate. It is because the US was not a separate party in the last election. However, the number of seats that the Madhav group had won in the last election can be allotted to the US. This should be 20 per cent in view of this figure put in the new ordinance for a party to split instead of the existing 40 per cent.

Consequently, its share could be about 59 in view of the 294 seats won by the United Marxists Leninists (UML) alone.

The alliance team had circulated an appropriate criterion for nomination of the winning party candidate in the last election. In positions where the UML had registered a victory, a coalition candidate has been proposed. It means that the NC, MC, US, JSP and JM will contest in 266, 106, 59, 34 and 3 positions,- totaling468 seats, respectively, where they had achieved success in a proportion of 57, 22, 13, 7, 1 per cent. The coalition candidates will fight for the remaining 285 seats. Applying the preceding proportion, the coalition partners can fight in 163, 62, 37, 20 and 3 places respectively.

The aforementioned arrangement is rational as it is based on the hard reality of the victory obtained in the last election, barring the solitary case of the US. The NC may not be pleased because the proportion of the seats contested between the main party and the allies will be 57 and 43, which is far less than that of the Indian coalition of 75:25.

Even the MC will be unhappy because in the last coalition between the UML and the MC, the agreed percentage was 60/40. The MC walked into the UML orbit because the NC had agreed for 25 per cent of the seats only. So, the allocation of 22 per cent of the seats will certainly be annoying for the MC.

As for the distribution of the posts, the parties should agree on a turn to turn basis if there is opposition to the repetition. It means that the MC should accede to the NC in Bharatpur Metropolitan City as it currently enjoys this privilege, and the NC has been staking its claim this time.

The US has been claiming its candidature in Kathmandu Metropolitan City, citing the UML had won the last time, and being a party that has broken away from the UML, it deserves its nomination. Had the mayor of KMC joined the US, its claim could be justified.

This coveted post should thus go to the alliance partner with the maximum chance of a victory, one of which could be the NC in view of its second rank in the last election.

The distribution of seats and the posts in a coalition is certainly not a cake walk, especially so in Nepal where the coalition culture is still in its infancy. But the adoption of a rational mindset will resolve the problems confronting the alliance partners. If the parties make it a prestige issue, like the MC claiming for Bharatpur or the US for the Kathmandu slot, then more complications are going to arise.

The partners of the coalition should not deviate from the rational and scientific path of basing it on the actual victory obtained in the last election.

A version of this article appears in the print on April 13, 2022, of The Himalayan Times.