Millions of Nepali Citizens Abroad Denied Right to Vote Again

Once again, millions of Nepali citizens residing abroad have been deprived of their right to vote. While the significant contribution of citizens living abroad to the country's economic and social development is acknowledged, why are all bodies and political parties silent on the implementation of voting rights?

The Supreme Court's order eight years ago to grant Nepali citizens working abroad the right to participate in elections has still not been implemented, causing overseas Nepalis to be disenfranchised from voting in the House of Representatives election scheduled for Falgun 21.

Although the Election Commission concluded through studies that attention must be paid to political consensus, technical and legal reforms, and management before arranging voting for Nepalis abroad, many political parties, despite including assurances in their manifestos, agendas, and platforms to secure the constitutional voting rights of Nepalis living abroad, have failed to take up the issue of 'currency is valid, but the vote is not' seriously.

Even though the then Bibeksheel Nepali Dal, led by Ujjwal Thapa, popularized the issue of 'currency is valid, but the vote is not' among overseas Nepalis through a nationwide campaign, why have those who started alternative politics from the same party—like Ranu Darshana, Pukar Bom, Birajbhakta Shrestha, Samikshya Baskota, Govinda Narayan Timalsina (advisor to Prime Minister Sushila Karki), and Om Prakash Aryal—not shown promptness?

This is not just surprising; it raises the question of whether it reflects a flaw in their very intentions.

According to the statement published by the Election Commission on Falgun 1, 078, if we estimate based on the approximately 1 million Nepalis abroad who had registered for voter rolls, today there are around 5 to 7 million voters outside the country. Depriving such a decisive voting bloc of the opportunity to vote is not only a mockery of democracy but also a murder of the democratic character by political parties.

Elections are not merely about electing individuals or forming a government for a particular party. Elections are a beautiful democratic system within democracy, where the sanctity, impartiality, and reliability of voting must be maintained. However, by denying the opportunity to vote to millions of citizens outside Nepal, they will also be politically marginalized.

The Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families also stipulates that 'migrant workers and members of their families shall have the right to vote in elections in their country of origin and to stand for election.' Accordingly, the Bangladesh Embassy in Qatar informed that arrangements have been made for Bangladeshi citizens in Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Malaysia to vote in the House of Representatives election to be held in Bangladesh on February 12, 2026.

Viewed this way, the citizen government led by Sushila Karki in Nepal, formed after the 'Genji' movement, appears similar to the government led by Mohammad Yunus in Bangladesh, formed after the student movement. Both have the responsibility and mandate to conduct elections.

However, the government led by Mohammad Yunus has provided its citizens with the right to vote physically and online by sending sealed ballots via mail and collaborating with the governments of various countries, including Qatar, through embassies.

The Philippines has been providing its citizens abroad with the opportunity to vote for 30 days prior to the election. It is not just from a justice perspective that the state benefits from the contribution of its citizens abroad to the economy through remittances, but it is also inappropriate that these same citizens are deprived of voting because they have to stay outside the country.

In the context of Nepal, providing voting rights may be more difficult than in other countries, but it is not impossible. The report prepared by the Election Commission's monitoring team after studying various countries seven years ago also suggests the same.

• Useful Alternatives

First, establishing polling centers at Nepali embassies and missions abroad one month in advance. This can be done by mobilizing embassy staff and the Non-Resident Nepali Association. By conducting elections with ballot boxes placed within the embassy premises, the hassle of obtaining permission from the respective host country is avoided.

Second, it can be done through online voting and sending ballots via mail, a practice Bangladesh follows. Applications can be submitted through a mobile app to participate in the election process with identity verification. Based on the received applications, the right to vote can be granted by sending ballots via mail to the embassy.

Although participation might appear low from a participation perspective, it is effective. This builds a basis for trust for political parties in democracy and for the Election Commission. However, for this work, groundwork must begin a year in advance, and all preparations must be completed two months before the election.

Third, online voting can be an alternative. Whenever election time is set, the topic of voting online or via the internet always emerges as a major discussion point. It is an easy way to involve voters through online or internet voting. This system is considered larger in scale than the previous two alternatives in terms of voter participation because it eliminates the need to travel to a polling station or send ballots via mail.

If internationally accepted principles are adopted to use the facility of secure, secret, and reliable online voting, it seems it would have a good impact not only on Nepalis outside Nepal but also in remote districts within Nepal. Such practices have been adopted in Canada and the United States.

• Where Did the Parties and the Commission Get Stuck?

The Election Commission is in a state of confusion about whether to allow Nepalis abroad who have acquired dual citizenship to participate in elections, as it is not known that they have acquired dual citizenship unless they declare it themselves in those countries. There is uncertainty about whether to allow Nepalis with dual citizenship to participate in the election or not.

On the other hand, the Commission does not want to take on the burden of complicated work related to economic, political, diplomatic, security, and procedural matters.

For political parties, allowing Nepalis abroad to participate in voting is like shooting themselves in the foot. Nepalis who have experienced Nepal and seen foreign countries do not vote based on party affiliation; they choose development-oriented, patriotic, and honest leadership. They understand that they will not vote for traditional, repeatedly seen, and experienced leaders.

Therefore, the dual character of saying, 'We will give you the right to vote to please those abroad,' while simultaneously treating them as remittance machines, can be easily understood.