The fight for tickets for the May 13 local elections was starting to get ugly. In order to keep the ruling five-party coalition intact, it had to work out a consensual ticket-sharing formula. But none of the parties seemed ready to budge. Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s CPN (Maoist Center) was intent on retaining the mayor of Bharatpur, the country’s third most populous city (and Dahal did). Madhav Kumar Nepal’s CPN (Unified Socialist) was adamant that it should get to pick the mayoral candidate for Pokhara, the second most populous city (and Nepal did too). There was likewise a bitter dispute in the coalition over the pick of candidates for the mayor of Kathmandu, the most populous. It was the same story in Nepal’s other major settlements.

Competition is the essence of democracy. Yet political parties were fighting tooth and nail not over the competing visions or competencies of their proposed candidates. What top leaders rather wanted was to ensure that their yes-men got the top posts so that they could milk the local units for partisan benefits. Another interesting trend is of political parties trying to woo actors and entertainers to increase their mass appeal. CPN-UML, the main opposition, seems particularly keen on having recognized celebrities on board—for show if not for actual representation.

Both these trends suggest a high level of immaturity of Nepali politics. The Nepali electorate keeps voting along party lines even if the candidates in the fray are incompetent—whether or not they are pop culture celebrities. This in turn gives the parties the freedom to pick candidates as they please. This vicious cycle must be broken if we want effective and accountable governance.