Nepal’s legislature parliament will elect a new Prime Minister on 21 July. The whole process began following the resignation on 30 June of Madhav Kumar Nepal, who was heading a CPN (UML) led coalition government. With his resignation, two of the three-point agreement among the three major parties Nepali Congress (NC), CPN- UML and UCPN (M), which led to the extension of Constituent Assembly for one year on 28 May, has been implemented. The only point to be implemented reads, “We are committed to moving ahead with consensus and cooperation to take the peace process to a meaningful conclusion, to carry out all the remaining works related to the peace process and to accomplish the historic responsibility of completing the task for writing the new constitution.”

The political parties have interpreted this as the ball now being in the Maoists court for implementation of the clause. They have said that they would agree for a UCPN (M) led national consensus government only after the Maoists come clear on army integration, dismantle the Para-military structure of its youth wing, the Young Communist League (YCL) and return the properties seized during conflict; that the modalities for integration and rehabilitation of the Maoist combatants need to be finalized; the Maoists need to dissociate themselves from the weapons and their former combatants staying in various cantonments across the country. 

On their part, the Maoists have been asking the other parties to support them for a national consensus government under their leadership unconditionally. They state that they are not responsible for the implementation of the first point of the 28 May three-point agreement that concerns the peace process. They argue that constitution making and the peace process will not move ahead without a national unity government led by them. The Maoists made efforts towards forming a national unity government under their leadership. In this direction they put forward a proposal titled,   'basis of consensus for ending the political deadlock’, but failed to garner support in the time period spelt out by the President. Many were of the view that the Maoist proposal was against the norms and spirit of the past agreements including the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) and that it would not create consensus. That it was silent on the number of Maoist combatants to be integrated as well as the criteria for their integration and rehabilitation.

The chances of forming a Maoist led national consensus government are now nearly over. The question arises - why could the Maoists not form a national consensus/unity government under their leadership?

Trust Deficit
The Maoist led coalition government formed after the CA elections in 2008 created lots of mistrust between the Maoists and the other political parties who were of the view that as the only political party with an army, the Maoists had an unfair advantage over all of them. The Maoists felt that as the party, which had won the largest number of seats, it had a right to lead the government, overlooking that it had a duty to create trust too and needed to remove their apprehensions. Thus the other parties are now very clear that unless certain issues are settled first, they will not support a Maoists led unity government.

Misplaced Agenda
They did not use the opportunity while in government to focus on the primary issues of the peace process and constitution drafting. The Maoists now argue that it reserves the right to lead the government for the fact that the Madhav Kumar Nepal has proved to be a failure and that their party is the champion of the current national agendas - federalism, new constitution to be drafted from the Constituent Assembly and the restructuring of the state. But the Maoists have been more responsible than anyone else for moving away from this core agenda in the last one year. First, it was their insistence on a resolution against the Presidents action to reinstate the army chief; then issues of nationalism were introduced; later they were bent upon the resignation of the Prime Minister Nepal.

Misplaced strategies of the last one year
Their four-phase protest movement of the last one-year has resulted in not only bitter relations with the other parties; but bilaterally with India too. Further, there has recently been a critical thinking within the UCPN (M) of their past strategy and its benefits if at all. Also these protests have distanced them from the general public too following whose pressure it had to call off its indefinite general strike in May.

Conclusion:  What should the UCPN (M) do now?

- A need to revisit its strategies of the past one-year objectively. Look at its long-term presence in Nepali politics and not just the short-term.
- By delaying drafting of the constitution, it dilutes its own historic contribution for an inclusive agenda and other groups and leaders gain power
- Building trust will always be beneficial to it because its unlikely that the Maoists will again get the number of seats they got in the CA elections. So a coalition government is here to stay like in other parts of the world.