Dismantling the power that had rotated among septuagenarian leaders of the traditional parties, Nepalis delivered one of the strongest anti-establishment verdicts in the country’s democratic history through the March 5 snap polls. Yet those parties seem hell-bent on resisting change. As agreed when the coalitions were originally formed, the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML are trying to reshuffle provincial governments by sharing power. Currently, the Congress leads four provinces: Madhesh, Bagmati, Gandaki and Sudurpaschim, and it is now digging in its heels to retain power there. Meanwhile, the UML leads the remaining three: Koshi, Lumbini and Karnali, and hopes to take the helm there. The Nepali Communist Party is also keeping a keen eye on Sudurpaschim Province. Except for Madhesh Province, restructured a few months ago, the other provinces will likely see new chief ministers and a new coalition. However, this signals a troubling return to the same culture that the country’s young people protested against last September.

Politicians have long misused coalitions to distribute power among themselves in Nepal. The coalition culture at the federal level paralysed provinces and also stripped them of their autonomy as envisioned in the Constitution. Successive governments failed to enact laws such as the Federal Civil Service Act and the Federal Education Act, hindering the progress of provinces. Largely inactive, Nepalis saw provinces only as an expensive expansion of governance, with development priorities aligned with local needs few and far between.

Amid political change in the country, there were expectations that the traditional parties would learn a lesson and change their approach to provinces. Following the September Gen Z protests, when the UML resisted any change and reelected Oli as its party leader, and the erstwhile CPN (Maoist Centre), CPN (Unified Socialist), and eight other splinter communist parties formed a larger Nepali Communist Party, the Nepali Congress held a special general convention pledging reform. Then emerged the so-called reform-oriented ‘Congress 2.0’, and Gagan Kumar Thapa rose to the party’s leadership, ousting former prime minister and party chair Sher Bahadur Deuba. But the party’s decision to negotiate with UML chair Oli to form yet another round of coalition manoeuvring in provinces is not good news for the party’s future and its promises of reform. Provincial reshuffling may lead to short-term gains, but it risks further eroding the appeal of traditional parties at a time when citizens are questioning their relevance.

Coalition is certainly not a way to mount a comeback. With Congress limited to 38 seats and the UML to 25 through the snap polls, they, along with others, need to seriously reflect on how they can win people’s hearts in the upcoming elections. Even by simply playing the role of opposition in the federal government, holding the government accountable to its promises and urging provincial leadership to follow the federal government’s reformist policies, traditional parties can retain relevance. They need the breathing room to rebuild their grassroots voter base and reorganise their internal party structure.

The public, seeking competence and delivery, recognises that traditional parties are pursuing a ‘survival strategy’ by opting for coalitions rather than holding a genuine desire to correct their course and restore people’s faith in the provincial tier. If they lose public confidence, no coalition can save them. The sooner the parties understand this, the better.