KATHMANDU, July 24: Growing cooperation between the CPN-UML and the Nepali Communist Party (NCP) has triggered fresh debate, with both parties insisting the arrangement is only a working alliance to form provincial governments. Constitutional experts and political analysts, however, see broader political motives behind the move, including the survival of communist forces and the interests of senior leaders.
Constitutional expert Dr Bipin Adhikari said the cooperation reflects immediate political necessity rather than any long-term ideological commitment. Nepal's communist movement has repeatedly united and split over minor differences, and the latest effort lacks a clear ideological foundation or shared political vision, he said.
According to Adhikari, the alliance appears to be a tactical response by parties currently outside power rather than a genuine attempt at communist reunification. He argued that the real test will come during elections or government formation, when parties must demonstrate policy commitments and political priorities.
He also believes the alliance is unlikely to alter the national political balance. With the ruling coalition enjoying a comfortable parliamentary majority, cooperation among smaller parties will have little effect on existing power equations. Any meaningful impact, he said, would depend on whether the alliance presents a clear alternative agenda on issues such as national interest, democracy, security and the rule of law.
Still, Adhikari said the partnership could reassure party workers that the leadership remains politically active and is trying to reorganize the communist camp.
UML Publicity Department chief Niraj Acharya dismissed speculation of a broader reunification, saying the cooperation is limited to forming provincial governments where no party has secured a majority.
Sharp division in NCP over Dahal's remark
He said provincial governments require coalition partners, and the alliance became necessary after the Nepali Congress (NC) withdrew from provincial power-sharing arrangements. UML had proposed a government involving all opposition parties, but after NC rejected the idea, left parties moved ahead to form provincial governments together.
Acharya stressed that the partnership is neither an ideological merger nor an electoral alliance. It is a functional arrangement focused solely on governing the provinces and will continue as long as those governments remain in office. Future cooperation, he added, will depend on further discussions.
Political analyst Dr Dambar Khatiwada linked the cooperation to the declining strength of Nepal's communist parties. He said communist leaders preferred to lead independently when they were politically dominant, but weakening electoral support has forced them to seek allies.
If this trend continues through the next two or three elections, he warned, Nepal's communist parties could face the same long-term decline seen in West Bengal, Tripura, Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. For many communist leaders, he said, preserving political relevance has become more important than competing separately.
Khatiwada stated that the growing cooperation between UML and the NCP reflected both political survival and the personal interests of top leaders.
He argued that UML Chair KP Sharma Oli and NCP Coordinator Pushpa Kamal Dahal are both under pressure to hand over party leadership. A merger could delay party conventions, allowing them to remain in power longer. It could also preserve their roles through arrangements such as Oli becoming party chair and Prachanda serving as co-chair or parliamentary leader.
Khatiwada, however, ruled out a return to the powerful communist alliance of 2017, which secured a near two-thirds majority. He said that opportunity has passed and is unlikely to return for at least another decade. Even so, he believes the current cooperation could revive fragmented communist forces. He also pointed to internal power struggles within the NC as another factor behind the shifting political landscape.
NCP leader Madhav Sapkota also rejected speculation about an imminent party merger, saying the current partnership is only a functional alliance to form provincial governments.
He said rebuilding Nepal's communist movement requires long-term dialogue and careful political discussions, not a rushed merger. Sapkota admitted communist parties had failed to preserve unity in the past and said they must learn from those mistakes before pursuing another unification effort.
According to him, the NCP had initially preferred the continuation of the UML and NC coalition. But after that partnership collapsed, left parties decided to cooperate to prevent a constitutional vacuum and ensure provincial governments continued to function.
Sapkota stressed that the agreement covering all seven provinces should not be interpreted as party unification. Any merger, he said, would require serious discussions on ideology, leadership and party programs. Broader cooperation among like-minded left parties remains possible, but a formal merger can only follow extensive political dialogue.
He added that provincial leadership has yet to be finalized and will be decided after consultations among senior leaders.
Sapkota blamed the collapse of the former Nepal Communist Party largely on leadership style, ego and mistrust rather than ideological differences. He warned that repeating unity without honest self-assessment could lead to another failure.
Senior NCP leader Narayan Kaji Shrestha described the decision to join provincial governments as a political necessity rather than a strategic choice. He said his party would have preferred the NC and UML coalition to continue, allowing the NCP to remain in opposition.
After the coalition broke down, however, the party concluded that it had to help form governments to prevent instability, constitutional uncertainty and prolonged political deadlock in the provinces.
