The historical task, which began over 60 years ago with the desire for the people’s representatives to be able to make a constitution, was completed on the 3rd of Ashwin 2072 (September 20, 2015). To reach this day, there had been a decade-long armed struggle and various people’s movements, followed by two Constituent Assembly elections. Although the new Constitution of 2072 was born, it carried within it moments of divisive disagreements, accusations, and counter-accusations among political parties. In other words, the DNA of the new constitution became highly complex. Changing or altering this complexity is not as simple as raising a slogan. Even with a parliamentary majority sufficient to amend it, using scissors to cut through it could potentially lead to another civil war, and one cannot entirely dismiss the possibility that someone might make such a foolish move.

When the Nepali Congress and CPN-UML formed a coalition government, they used constitutional amendments as a weapon to justify their alliance. This is, in itself, an irresponsible and extreme argument. At a time when they should be focused on implementing the constitution, their approach of attacking its fundamental pillars has created even more confusion. The current government, which took two months just to form a minimal common program, clearly lacks the capability to handle a challenging issue like constitutional amendments. Yet, this two-party coalition has succeeded in sowing the seeds of confusion and conflict in Nepalese society.

Necessity of Coalition Culture

The governance system introduced by the new Constitution clearly reflected the need for the development of coalition politics. However, during the first election, the brief alliance of two leftist parties prevented a genuine debate on coalition culture.

It is also authoritarian to argue that we need a majoritarian electoral system without confessing to the misdeeds that have resulted from past majorities. A nearly decade-long debate was held in the Constituent Assembly about the governance system, electoral process, and federal structure established in the Constitution. The major parties carefully crafted this system and structure and presented it to the people. Since then, we have gone through just two electoral cycles, with the results of the second cycle still unfolding. The governance system introduced by the new Constitution clearly reflected the need for the development of coalition politics. However, during the first election, the brief alliance of two leftist parties prevented a genuine debate on coalition culture. The misuse of that temporary majority brought chaos. It wasn’t the system or the number of seats that caused these problems, but the height of governmental incompetence. The parties, unable to bear the burden of their own majority, are now insisting on the need for a majoritarian electoral system, which is a betrayal of the people.

The current Constitution does not prevent parties from pursuing a two-party system. What provision in the Constitution blocks them from forming a two-party coalition? Was there any law or regulation hindering this? Certainly not, and this is why the two largest parties in parliament were able to form a coalition government. Democracy moves forward by respecting established systems and cultures, not by getting entangled in constitutional loopholes. This is something we can still learn from the British parliamentary system. Why isn’t there ‘horse-trading’ in the UK when a Prime Minister is removed or steps down? Our leaders need to stop making excuses and instead learn from these practices, and the sooner they stop undermining the Constitution and the system, the better.

Electoral Law Reform

How can we create a system where candidates can run without massive campaign expenditures?

The discussion should now focus on electoral laws rather than the Constitution itself. The current style of electoral spending, candidate selection by party chiefs, and the internal democratization of political parties are all subjects that must be addressed. If political parties are willing to select candidates through primary elections, voters will feel a stronger connection and trust in those candidates. The trend of rising electoral costs is alarming, and it has hollowed out the country through corruption. How can we put a stop to this? How can we create a system where candidates can run without massive campaign expenditures? Why not adopt a system where a qualified candidate can easily emerge from a party’s primary elections? Are we to continually perpetuate the rule of party leaders in the name of democracy? These are the serious issues currently being raised in Nepalese society. Where is the appropriate debate on these topics by the three major parties? Leaders at all levels are scared to face the people, knowing full well that the people will not follow their orders. The very parties that once rose up against feudalism are now headed by leaders who have become modern-day feudal lords, and this scenario has persisted far too long.

Lessons from Abroad

The new “Generation -Z(Gen–Z)” voters have no patience for seeing the same leaders over and over, no matter how good their faces may look. In the ideal American system, when the tradition of a person serving as President for more than two terms began to falter, the Constitution was amended to limit a person to two terms. This amendment received bipartisan support in the U.S. Congress. Similarly, in countries with a Prime Ministerial system, how many terms or how long should one person serve? Where is the debate on this? The ‘Gen- Z’ voters of today do not want to see the same leader’s face repeatedly, and this is a global trend.

Proportional Representation as an Option

Most developed European countries use proportional or mixed electoral systems. Apart from the UK, no other European country uses the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system. Despite criticisms of the American system, European democracies have flourished with their diverse forms of proportional representation and coalition politics. While Britain has experienced significant parliamentary instability, countries like Germany, France, Denmark, Switzerland, and the Scandinavian nations have faced far less instability, thanks to their adherence to minimal democratic norms and traditions.

Among the top 10 countries in the Democracy Index categorized as “Full Democracies,” 8 have adopted proportional representation. Similarly, in the 2020 Democracy Index, 8 out of the top 10 countries with the most “full democracies” use proportional representation. These countries include Norway, Iceland, Sweden, New Zealand, Finland, Denmark, Ireland, and the Netherlands. Britain ranks 16th in the list of 23 full democracies.

More than 100 countries worldwide have adopted proportional or mixed electoral systems, with 73 using a party-list proportional (PR) system. This is where Nepal should focus. In the party-list system, constituencies are larger than those in FPTP, and voters elect groups of representatives. These constituencies could be a city, district, or even the entire country. There are several variations of this system, including open and closed lists, the single transferable vote system, among others. Nepal uses a closed list PR system, but only for 110 out of 275 MPs (40% of the total). Our proportional representation system is incomplete and inadequate.

Every electoral system must balance competing needs, such as proportionality (whether parliamentary seats reflect the votes cast), the relationship between MPs and their communities, and the voters’ freedom to choose between candidates. Debates on these issues are ongoing.

MPs Shouldn’t Be Ministers

Although no electoral system is perfect, the one that offers the highest level of representation and the lowest level of corruption should be adopted according to a country’s needs. Until Nepal fully adopts a proportional electoral system and strictly enforces a rule preventing MPs from becoming ministers, there is little hope of stopping parliamentary corruption.

Why Federalism on Debate?

Another topic of discussion is federalism. UML Deputy General Secretary Bishnu Rimal, in a conversation with me, argued, “Our province is not a state; it’s not like the empowered states in India or the U.S.” If the understanding of the three major parties regarding provinces is like this, then a structural debate is necessary. On the other hand, Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba stated at the inauguration of his party’s orientation program, “Provinces have already been established, and they can’t be removed.” The problem lies here. These provinces were not given by Deuba, Oli, or Dahal but were forced upon them by the people’s movements. What Nepal needs is a system that ensures elections are corruption-free.

Happy Constitution Day!

19 September 2024.