By Rudra Raj Koirala, TON Nepal

It is a fact that Nepal’s elections suffer from an absence of fresh ideas. For an election to truly be responsible, it must signify the voice of the marginalized people at every stage in the political parties, the candidates, and their philosophies. In Nepal, this remains a major barrier to democratic development. Consider the political landscape since the 2017 elections, in which alliances between political factions have become a new standard for Nepali politics. This year, the alliance between the CPN-Maoist Centre and Nepali Congress is contesting the election against the alliance led by the CPN-UML.

Currently, these alliances don’t make ideological sagacity. The Maoist Centre inclines strongly left, whereas the Nepali Congress is Centre-left. They characterize different segments of the Nepali political range which shows that these Partnerships between political factions are presently encouraged by opportunism rather than by principles. These alliances, especially at the top tier, change interparty dynamics into a game of unions which fiercely weaken the democratic and electoral process in Nepal.

It is true that such coalitions left Nepal susceptible to external sway. As it has been assumed that China's Chinese Communist Party (CCP) played a part in the 2017 alliance between the CPN-UML and CPN-Maoist Centre. As Nepal is growing in geographic, strategic, and economic prominence to major powers, this potential consequence of interparty alliances cannot be overlooked. China is already excavating ties through Confucius Institutes and the China People’s Armed Police; the US is similarly endeavoring to use the Millennium Challenge Corporation and State Partnership Programme to sign Nepal onto its larger Indo-Pacific strategy. For this, Nepal needs a government that represents its constituents to fairly adopt a balanced relation between the competing sides in Indo-specific.

Third, conceptual integrity is also hindered by a lack of inclusive representation at the candidate level. For the upcoming general elections, only 9.33 percent of the total candidates for the House of Representatives under the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system are women. For the Provincial Assembly election, this number shrinks to 8.59 percent. The ruling coalitions led by the Nepali Congress and CPN-UML have nominated just 25 women as candidates under the FPTP system. There is only one candidate from the LGBTIQ+ community. They are fewer opportunities to have the issues addressed of relegated communities and structural inequalities will remain without adequate representation among candidates from the marginalized communities in Nepal.

Nepal’s current methods of checking representation are also largely ineffectual. It is evident from the fact, that the political leaders have openly preferred their relatives when submitting closed lists a system announced to ensure better representation across castes, classes, and communities than through the FPTP system. It is essential to create these avenues for inclusion to upgrade the living standards of marginalized communities.

In view of the overlooking the ideology in Nepal’s elections, it isn’t surprising that voters have grown fed-up. This vicious cycle in the party’s manifestos, which were recently released in the win the election. These manifestos, which once notable political factions on the basis of ideas, have now become a numbers game, with parties announcing competing economic projections for issues such as job creation and social security benefits. 

With parties predicting double-digit growth rates that dwarf all realistic expectations, the manifesto process has become less about promoting the ideology and more about repeated rhetoric. If parties announced at least a roadmap for the results that they expect to achieve Nepal could once again foster the kind of political discourse that allows for informed, accountable voting.

At last, Nepal’s next government could extend voter accessibility to groups that offer unique perspectives. Millions of Nepali migrant workers which have been estimated to be as many as 3.5 million while eligible to vote, have no provisions allowing them to do so, disenfranchising them politically. While their remittances power nearly a quarter of Nepal’s GDP, their voices are not being signified in governance. In addition to providing them basic citizenship rights, allowing absentee voting for migrants would inject a new perspective that does not currently play a role in Nepali politics.

Migrant workers have largely worked in the developed world contributing to Nepal at large. If Nepal continues to lose the voice and vote of Migrant workers. Then the election results will increase the similarity, producing the same alliances, and the same contenders with a lack of fresh ideas.