Meaning of Election Result-2017 for the Alternatives

by Dambar Khatiwoda

Many times I had been written that there are only five ideological spaces in Nepali politics-Liberal Democrats, Communists, Conservatives, Identity-based federalists and the Alternatives. The Alternatives mean the ultra-modern Left-democrats; it may be called centre- lefts who are trying to occupy the blank space of 'social democracy'. And among them who can make strong unity among forces within space may win the elections. Election is a brutal game in the politics. Winner becomes 'the Alexander' and defeater remains defeater. Regret after election cannot make correction before the next election.

Elections in the modern politics aren't simple straight-line matter. To hold successful election Champaign every party needs skillful leaders. Tactful parties and leaders must be serious to make appropriate election strategies in the time. Wining election in the process of Multi-Party system is a set of '5S' approach. Space, Scope, Strategy, Step and Strength. Anyone who wants to win should have clear approaches.

In this election- Liberal democrats Led by Nepali Congress had clear Space, Scope and Strength but not suitable strategy and appropriate stepping. Communists were unified. Not only the big like CPN-UML and CPN- Maoist centre, small others like CPN- Mashal was also with their alliance. Conservatives led by of RRP were divided in three groups. Federalists had been united by Federal Socialist Forum – RJP alliance. The Alternatives like Bibekshil Shajha Party and Naya Shakti Party were confused and doubtful with each other.

And the result is clear- Communists have won the election with comfortable majority. Their space was left- voters made by schooling of seven decades. Their scope was slogan of political stability. Their strategy was criticized, blamed and condemned to NC as responsible for failure of past three decades. There stepping was made by strong communists alliance and announce of unified huge single party. Their strength was grass root organizations, money and locally recognized candidates.

The Conservatives hadn't anything without their old image of Monarchy and Hindutwa. Their Strategy was leaning with NC for some seats and Strength was money they had as an elite political family. Identity- based Federalists won the election with the reasonable size in the Province-2 because of their unity. They are going to form provincial government of Madhesh.

I think the alternatives are the emerging political force of Nepal. They were contesting election in the first time on the national and provincial level.  There is not clarity about the alternatives among voters. To clear their space they had had differentiates 'the conventional' and 'the alternative'. But they had not enough time to do it.  Nayashakti had not better image by many causes and Bibekshil Shaja had weak organizational network. So that both are unsuccessful to cross 3% although Bibekshil Shajha was successful to collect more than double PR vote of Nayashakti near about threshold. 

The alternatives are also failed to applied '5S' approach to win. Basically Nayashakti was being missed by space, scope, strategy and stepping and the basic problem of Bibekshil Sajha was being missed by Strength. PR vote 2, 12, 366 was collected by Bibekshil Sajha and 81, 836 by Nayasakti.  Basically Vote of Bibekshil Sajha was depended on compassioned whims and Nayasakti was on concretized small organizations. 3, 55, 190 PR votes were with miscellaneous small parties There may be some small alternative groups among them.  Only total votes of Bibekshil Sajha and Nayashakti were 2, 94, 203 which is 3.08% of valid total PR Votes of 95, 44, and 744. It was enough to cross the national threshold and to be ' national party'.

Bibekshil Sajha became provincial party with 3 PR seats in Province-3 and NayaShakti won one seat of Houses of representative and 2 seats of provincial assemblies by the help of NC alliance. Nayashakti crossed the Provincial threshold only in the province-4 with one PR seat.

The vital question of this election result is that what is the meaning of result to the alternatives?  Are they rejected by the voters or is it their initial success?  It is clear that the alternatives couldn't draw the attention of voters sufficiently. The Conventionals had much more strength than the alternatives. But it is early to conclude they were rejected. One thing is sure; they missed the opportunities of betterment. They could do better than it.