On September 9, Nepal burned following the killing of 19 unarmed protesters a day earlier. That day, as the country became effectively stateless following the resignation of KP Sharma Oli as prime minister, the Post wrote a special editorial. In it, we urged Balendra Shah, the mayor of Kathmandu, to assume the leadership of a new interim government. This was in line with the public sentiment that Shah, as the trusted figure of the Gen Z, should take the lead in pulling the country out of the political crisis. In the event, Shah declined the prime minister’s offer put forth by the Gen Z protest leaders, and instead lobbied for the formation of a new government under Sushila Karki, a former chief justice. Now, Shah and his team have signed an agreement with the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP). The two sides have agreed to go to the March 5 elections under the RSP’s name and party symbol—and with Balendra Shah as the party’s prime minister candidate. Again, it seemed natural for this trusted face of the new generation to emerge as the prime minister candidate of what is now a potent alternate force. It is the right practice too.

Such pre-poll projection of prime ministerial candidates offers people a clear picture of the future government formed under the new leader. Otherwise, the political parties spend much of the post-election phase haggling over government leadership and which, when chosen, might not even respect the public mandate. The way Pushpa Kamal Dahal, the leader of the third largest party in the erstwhile parliament, repeatedly became prime minister by holding the ‘magical number’ was antithetical to the spirit of parliamentary democracy. Thus the unity of like-minded forces being witnessed in the lead-up to the March elections is a welcome development. Shah and the RSP have come together—just like many Madheshi outfits or the two royalist Rastriya Prajatantra Party have done. There could be similar mergers or poll alliances between the traditional parties. Such coalitions of like-minded parties create much-needed political polarisation—between the left, the right and the centre. It also promotes healthy ideological debates rather than poisonous people-centric ones.

Coming back to the Shah-RSP unity, there is also a risk. Nepal has a long history of splits in political parties as they could not accommodate multiple personality cults. Perhaps the best example of this is the swift formation and abrupt implosion of the Nepal Communist Party, which commanded nearly two-thirds parliamentary majority, primarily because Oli and Dahal were not ready to accommodate each other. There is a chance of such a clash between, say, Shah and Rabi Lamichhane, both of whom like to cultivate larger-than-life persona. It would be a tragedy for Nepal if a new alliance or party gets people’s mandate to run the country for the next five years, but then internal divisions again come in the way of political stability and national development. This applies to the new RSP, as it does to other forces that could potentially form the post-election government. It is about time parliamentary democracy was brought back on track.