By Usman Khan

In the background of recent local election results, it is now clear that the general elections later this year will most likely produce a hung parliament, mainly because of the electoral system of Nepal. Not only the CPN-UML chair but many others also were anticipating Nepal to change towards bipolar politics after the local elections but its looks not possible now.

The country will go to the polls later this year to elect a new House of Representatives. As per the electoral system, 165 members will come through the first-past-the-post system while 110 members are elected through proportional representation.

The likelihood of any party winning majority seats 138 looks slim unless there is an amazing performance by any party. The prospects of a hung parliament are there and may raise the chances of weakening in government. There is a need to appraise the existing electoral system as it can neither give a stable government nor control corruption.

Since the refurbishment of democracy in 1990, Nepal has been motivated to attain a stable government that can govern for the full term. Till 2018, Nepal saw dozens of governments being formed and toppled in cycles, largely because none of the parties could achieve a clear majority.

The general perception is that political instability has been a nuisance to Nepal, stymying progress. When Nepali politicians were drawing up the constitution, one of the goals was also ushering in political stability. The election of members in the 275-strong House in a 60:40 ratio (165+110) probably makes it impossible to have a stable government.

In 2018, there were hopes that the new government would last for the full term as the UML and the Maoist Centre had joined hands and swept the 2017 elections. But the expectations were short-lived, as the government fell after a little over three years.

Nepal is bound to have coalition governments of two or more parties, so rather than griping about the system, politicians should develop a culture of working in the larger interest of the people and the country. The system cannot be called faulty as there is a need to develop a coalition culture.”

Nepal’s governments have fallen in a series in the last three decades with every administration’s lifecycle around nine months. These numerous changes in government not only affected the development works but also depressed foreign investors from coming into Nepal to do business.

Almost all the governments in the past have collapsed over petty biased interests due to some politician’s whims and lust for power. In the recent past, the Maoist Centre has been the reason of the collapse of governments by the feature of its position as the third-largest party.

The Maoist Centre has managed to retain its third position because of its alliance with the Congress and other ruling parties, but it’s not clear yet whether the alliance will endure during the general elections also. No matter what, its haggling power has amplified and it will get ample chance to side either with the Congress or the UML whichever way suits it and its chair for that matter.

Over the last one and a half decades since the peace deal, the UML chair has earned notoriety as an unstable leader for his duplicity. A Maoist Centre leader said that “politics is all about benefits” and his party has become the kingmaker and gained more bargaining power. The third party in Parliament can always make or break governments.

For a stable government which is the goal then the country should either go for a fully-proportional representation system or a directly elected executive head either the president or the prime minister? However, the existing electoral system needs to be changed if the parties want a stable government and an end to corruption.

For at least 15 years, Nepali parties should adopt a fully-proportional election system with a minimum 5 percent threshold, an increase of two percent from the existing threshold. As the candidates should be elected by the lowest local level committees of the parties concerned and there must be a provision of ‘No Vote’ to reject corrupt candidates or politicians’ kin.”

The slight changes in the electoral system won’t be sufficient to ensure a stable government and the prosperity desired by the country. The parties should think of a drastic change in the electoral system, he suggests.

Currently, the political Parties of Nepal only think of their immediate benefits and not of the country. Therefore, they cannot step out of their comfort zones. Most of the problems and corruption would end only if the parties could ensure no lawmaker becomes a minister. If that happened, experts from relevant fields could run the respective ministries.”

The framers of Nepal’s constitution had excessively focused on finding ways to ensure a stable government. The provision that a majority prime minister cannot dissolve the House was written with the sole goal of ensuring stability. However, the CPN-UML chair did not give two hoots to the constitutional provision and dissolved the Parliament twice. His second move to dissolve the Parliament led to the fall of his government when the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional and upheld the claim of the opposition leader to the prime minister’s post.

After the promulgation of the new constitution a very good statute. It was up to the parties to implement it. As the constitution was drafted after lots of discussions. It was up to the parties to make use of it. The constitution is a living document. However, if some amendments are necessary, that should be done.

During the constitution drafting process, the Maoist Centre was for a directly elected presidential system but the UML and the Congress rejected the idea and adopted the existing mixed electoral system—electing 60 percent representatives through direct elections and 40 percent on the basis of proportional representation.

The electoral system of Nepal needs a mature coalition culture that is not visible. It is also the fact that the coalition is merely based on certain interests. The problem is that Nepal's political leadership across the country couldn’t develop the kind of mentality suitable for a federal republic. That’s why the existing Coalition culture electoral system demands are not successful.

As it is evident from the past that the first-past-the-post system, which was practiced until 1998, also could not give stable governments. It’s time to thought to review the electoral system of Nepal to ensure political stability in Nepal.