Perhaps, Nepal is the only country where only former prime ministers are entitled to become prime minister time and again. KP Sharma Oli has been the prime minister at intervals of three years since 2015 – in 2018, 2019 and now for the fourth time on July 15, 2024. He is now leading a NC-UML coalition government after PM Pushpa Kamal Dahal 'Prachanda' failed to secure the confidence of the House of Representatives (HoR) on July12. It was necessitated by the withdrawal of the support of the UML, which was the main coalition partner of his coalition government.

The new government was formed ion the basis of the seven-point agreement signed by NC President SB Deuba and UML chair Oli at the midnight of July1, 2024. Prime minister Oli made public the contents of the seven-point agreement only on July 21 while seeking the vote of confidence in the HoR .The signing of the agreement at midnight is intriguing in itself. However, a critical evaluation of the agreement may throw some light on it.

The first point of the agreement seems to convince the people that the agreement is country-centric, and not NC-UML centric, as it aims at ensuring political stability through which it can protect the national interest as per the wishes of the people and maintain good governance by reducing corruption and accelerating national infrastructure development activities.

The second point calls for amending the constitution and framing laws for ensuring political stability. The third point is related to creating a vibrant economy for creating jobs by encouraging both internal and external investment. The fourth point deals with the formation of the Oli-led government of national consensus for two years, which will be followed by the Deuba-led government until the general elections are held in December 2027.

The fifth stipulates that the national consensus government will prepare a common minimum programme to protect national interests and ensure good governance. The sixth point provides the structural direction for forming the new government, as it is mentioned that the national consensus government will ensure equal participation of the two leading parties while including other parties in the government. The last point observes that provincial governments would be formed in the spirit of the national consensus government to accelerate development activities at the provincial and local levels.

As a matter of fact, the first and the fourth points are the two main planks on which the government has been formed. The first point envisages the formation of the government under article 76(2), which provides for two or more than two parties to form a government when no party gets a majority in the HoR. However, it seems to contradict the very spirit of article 76(3) of the constitution, which calls for forming a government by the single largest party in the HoR when the incumbent PM loses the confidence of the House. Of course, it can also be interpreted that the Nepali Congress has decided to forgo its constitutional right of being the single largest party for the sake of stability or has kept its option open for the future if Oli decides to dissolve the House as he has done twice in the past.

The fourth point ensures Oli's rule for two years despite being the second largest party and the remaining 16 months have been left for the single largest party, the NC, whose president will hold the next general election.

Here a question is raised: Does it really define the concept of 'political stability'? According to Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, the word 'stability' means 'the quality or state of being steady and not changing or being disturbed in any way'. Perhaps, the dictionary fails to visualise the true implication of the word, as it also connotes the duration of the period to which it is applied.

Especially, in the context of political stability of Nepal, it stands for the period for which the government is formed, be it 16 or 24 months. In course of time, we have developed a political culture of sharing the period of prime ministership with the coalition partners, ignoring its effects on the normal functioning of the government, as every change of even a minister, not to talk of the prime minister, sees a change in the secretaries of the ministry to suit the interest of the minister concerned.

Most importantly, for forming a coalition government, why is it necessary to divide the tenure of the prime ministership? Why should not the leader of the biggest party of the coalition be allowed to lead the government? There are instances when a minority government has completed its full term. For example, after World War II, Canada, a country with a parliamentary system, had 24 governments till 2022, out of which 10 were minority governments.

It seems ridiculous to blame the constitutional provisions for political instability. What is really needed is self-control of the power-hungry prime ministers to satisfy themselves after becoming the prime minister once or twice. Our mature leaders know that no system is perfect. And stability can be ensured even within the existing system provided they want to have it.

Is it not possible to keep Oli as the Prime Minister till the general election is held?

If the midnight agreement was signed to really ensure stability and Deuba has shown his bigheartedness by forgoing his rightful claim to lead the government, he should allow PM Oli to continue and the provincial governments too be continued. If it is not possible, it means that the signing of the agreement was not for the sake of stability but for serving the secret interests of the signatories. For we know one can fool someone some of the time but not everyone all of the time.

Mishra is a former election commissioner