Spread the love

By Our News Desk Staff

The CPN UML finds itself cornered as the March 5 House of Representatives election draws closer. Its push for seat-level electoral coordination has been flatly rejected by both the Nepali Congress and the Nepal Communist Party. On paper, this looks like a tactical setback. In practice, it opens a larger debate about alliances, democratic choice, and how prepared parties really are to stand on their own feet.

In a democracy, alliances before an election come with baggage. Major parties are expected to offer voters clear choices. When large parties stitch together deals to avoid competition, voters often feel boxed in. Electoral alliances can dilute accountability. If parties with different ideologies ask for votes together, it becomes harder for citizens to judge who stands for what. This is one reason leaders like Gagan Kumar Thapa have opposed pre-poll alliances. From that view, contesting alone respects voter intelligence and strengthens democratic competition.

There are benefits too. Alliances can prevent vote splitting and block the rise of smaller challengers. They can help parties convert votes into seats more efficiently. In tight races, a friendly withdrawal can decide the winner. UML’s interest in alliances comes from this logic. Facing strong challengers and growing voter volatility, it sees coordination as insurance.

The downsides are just as real. Alliances often anger party cadres at the ground level. Local leaders who worked for years suddenly get asked to support rivals. That resentment affects turnout and discipline. Alliances also create confusion during campaigns. Mixed messaging weakens credibility. Voters sense calculation rather than conviction.

This is where UML’s trouble deepens. Both Congress and NCP believe they have momentum. Congress has publicly committed to contesting all 165 seats alone. NCP leaders say the political climate favors them and see no reason to share space. Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Madhav Kumar Nepal have ruled out any deal with UML. That leaves UML exposed.

UML chair KP Sharma Oli had hoped for selective coordination, not a grand alliance. The aim was narrow and practical. Secure a few sensitive constituencies and reduce risk. With that door shut, UML must fight alone in places where contests have tightened sharply.

Jhapa 5 is a prime example. Oli’s long hold on the seat now faces a real test from Balen Shah. The RSP’s growing appeal among younger voters has changed the equation. UML had earlier leaned on allies like the Rastriya Prajatantra Party, but that option has also disappeared. Dang 2 presents a similar challenge for general secretary Shankar Pokhrel.

Still, UML is not without options. Its organisation remains strong in many districts. Door-to-door networks and disciplined cadres can still deliver seats. Vice chair Ram Bahadur Thapa has hinted at cooperation with smaller groups, including the party led by Janardan Sharma and Baburam Bhattarai. Such deals may help at the margins, though they cannot replace backing from major rivals.

Looking ahead to March 5, the picture points to a fragmented outcome. Congress appears confident in its solo run. NCP believes unity and effort can push it ahead. UML faces the toughest road, forced to defend strongholds while fighting on multiple fronts. Smaller parties and independents stand to gain from divided votes.

In the end, the refusal to ally may strengthen democracy by giving voters clearer choices. For UML, it raises the cost of past assumptions. This election will show which parties can still win without leaning on political shortcuts.