Electoral System Reform Crucial for Strengthening Nepali Democracy, Says Former Chief Election Commissioner

Kathmandu, February 13 (RSS): In a democracy, the electoral system is not merely a technical process for selecting representatives; it is the bedrock of state legitimacy, inclusivity, and public trust.

If the electoral system is not reformed in a timely manner, the institutional strength of democracy can weaken. Nepal's democracy can only be made people-oriented, not just structurally but also practically, by making its electoral system more inclusive, transparent, and reliable. The time has come to debate how to make Nepal's electoral system inclusive, transparent, and accountable.

Nepal long adhered to the majoritarian electoral system. After the 2006 People's Movement, the mixed electoral system was adopted while drafting the Interim Constitution during the conflict management phase. This system emerged from a compromise between the majority and proportional representation systems. One of the various factors contributing to the conflict was the lack of representation for all voices at the policy-making level. The mixed system was introduced in the Interim Constitution based on the grievance that while a specific class, group, or gender dominated policy-making, women, indigenous nationalities, Dalits, and Madhesis were not adequately represented. Given the country's diverse ethnic, linguistic, geographical, and gender structure, where the first-past-the-post system could not ensure representation for all communities, a quota system was established for proportional representation based on population.

Through the mixed electoral system, we attempted to make the parliament inclusive. The representation in the Constituent Assembly led to the drafting of Nepal's inclusive constitution. Through the proportional system, the presence of women, Dalits, indigenous nationalities, Madhesis, and backward classes in parliament increased. This is a positive aspect, but in practice, parliament ended up having two types of lawmakers: directly elected and proportionally elected. Questions were raised about the competence of some lawmakers who came through the proportional list. The lack of transparency and internal democracy within parties while preparing the proportional list posed a risk of limiting inclusivity to mere formality. No single party could secure a majority in parliament. Consequently, the system itself came under debate. Everyone knows that the mixed electoral system does not deliver a clear majority. This system works when political parties develop a culture of consensus. Our parties have yet to become fully institutionalized. The principle of an election is that the majority party governs for five years, and the minority parties remain in opposition to hold the government accountable. However, the lack of patience in our parties has created a significant gap between the political system and the character of the parties. As a result, the continuous formation of power-centric coalitions has increased public distrust in the system itself.

Globally, the evaluation of any electoral system, whether good or bad, is based on the competence of the people running it. Looking at the list of countries with good governance, low corruption, good administration, and happy citizens, a majority of such countries have adopted a fully proportional electoral system. We can learn from our neighbor India, where even when no single party gets a majority under the majoritarian system, political parties manage to run a coalition government by mutual agreement. Although Nepal's electoral system has achieved historical milestones in terms of inclusivity, the common complaint is that its qualitative aspect remains weak. Increasing the number of seats in parliament is not enough; effective participation in policy-making must be ensured. In the past, despite forming majority governments whenever we implemented various electoral systems, governments often fell prematurely due to a lack of internal management within those parties.

Nevertheless, some reforms are necessary in our electoral system. Parties have severely distorted the proportional representation mechanism. In recent years, elections have become very expensive. Individuals who use illicit money have come forward. Honest individuals are deterred from contesting elections, leading to an uneven playing field. Wrong practices have developed in the exercise of governance. The distinction between the party and the government has blurred. State mechanisms, from local to central levels, are being held hostage by parallel structures of political parties. Elected bodies are not functioning freely. This has fueled the ambition among leaders and cadres to gain power by any means necessary.

Maturity is needed in politics. Parties must exhibit tolerance, practice internal democracy, and be accountable and responsible. As democracy matures, the presentation of parties also evolves. In Western countries, parties only become active during specific circumstances and remain largely inactive otherwise. They do not encroach upon governance. This prevents parties from becoming unpopular among the public. Our country also needs this kind of political reform.

What to do now?

There may be several options for reforming the current electoral system to make the parliament resulting from the election inclusive, people-oriented, and responsible. We could revert to the previous majoritarian (first-past-the-post) system, but representation for those excluded can be managed through candidacy itself, perhaps based on population percentages. There are various practices for this. Another option is full proportional representation. This would reduce election costs and prevent unrest. The weaknesses of the past proportional system can be controlled through legislation. Excessive spending makes political competition unequal, increases the influence of money power, and pushes capable but economically weak candidates out of the competition. In the long run, this can change the very character of political leadership.

The third option involves reforming the current mixed electoral system to end the injustice in direct candidacy. Currently, we divide proportional seats by population quota, but we failed to do justice to economically, socially, and educationally backward classes within that quota. Instead of mere division, quotas should be reserved only for those who cannot enter through direct elections due to various reasons—be it gender, group, or class—while capable individuals can still come through direct elections. Furthermore, by treating the entire country as one constituency for the proportional list, party leadership began selecting candidates to suit their convenience, leading to an imbalance in regional representation, where some regions, classes, or communities are overrepresented while others are not represented at all. Instead, provincial lists can be created. This would allow for representation reflecting the characteristics, geography, population, and culture of each province. This could involve an 80% provincial list and a 20% national list. The 20% could include distinguished individuals whom the state should honor and who are essential in parliament.

It is also argued that the current threshold of three percent for the proportional representation system causes problems in forming a government. If so, a slight adjustment to this threshold would not make a difference. By allocating quotas to target groups, less than half of the current number of proportional seats might be needed. The seats saved could be used to increase the number of seats in direct elections. This might increase the possibility of a single party securing a majority.

Significance of the Upcoming Election

The upcoming election is an extraordinary election brought about by extraordinary circumstances. Many factors are responsible for this situation. Issues concerning accountability, responsibility, service delivery, corruption, and generational transition in the governance system have sparked a youth movement. Addressing these issues will be the biggest responsibility of the next parliament. To own these issues and find solutions, we must reform our laws, policies, and systems, strengthen our structures, and set the country on the highway of good governance. Today, the future of Nepal's democracy is directly linked to the credibility of its electoral system. As long as the public does not feel that their vote is secure, the foundation of democracy remains weak. The electoral system is not a static structure; it is a living system that must evolve with societal changes. Only by balancing inclusivity, transparency, expenditure control, reliable use of technology, and reform in political culture can Nepal's democracy be strengthened.

It is the responsibility of all of us to ensure the success of the upcoming election scheduled for February 21st. The consequences of the election not taking place will be more frightening than we imagine. Such a situation will not be beneficial for anyone. Although the Election Commission is responsible for conducting the election, all of us have an equal role. It is uncertain whether any single party will secure a majority from this electoral practice. If the party that wins the most seats and leads the government tries to move forward by only considering itself, the consequences suffered yesterday will be repeated in the country. If no party gets a majority, a coalition government will have to be formed. At that time, the public should not be disappointed again by forming an unholy alliance. The hope is that immediately after the new parliament convenes, all parties can agree on a resolution to guide the nation and prevent further public disillusionment. (The views presented are based on an interview conducted by Krishna Adhikari, Head of Features at RSS, with former Chief Election Commissioner Pokharel.)

---------