Nepal’s two big parties, which formed a coalition government six months ago calling for constitutional amendments “for political stability,” have reneged on their promise. Instead, they are now working on revising the law to change the electoral system — a move that many say could deal a blow to the principle of inclusivity.
With Prime Minister K. P. Sharma Oli recently saying that a constitutional amendment is not possible before 2030, his party, the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist), or CPN-UML, and the Nepali Congress (NC), are planning to increase the threshold for parties.
The threshold determines the number of seats parties are allocated based on the vote shares received under the proportional representation (PR) system. Currently, the threshold for parties in the Federal Parliament is 3%, which the ruling coalition is trying to increase to 5%.
PR is one of the two systems Nepal follows, the other being the first-past-the-post (FPTP), under which whoever wins more votes gets elected, to elect the Federal Parliament and Provincial Assemblies.
In Nepal’s 275-member House of Representatives, 165 members are elected under FPTP and the remaining 110 under the PR system. This mixed system makes it extremely difficult for a single party to win a majority, hence the last two elections since the promulgation of the Constitution in 2015 have resulted in hung parliaments, and multiple governments.
Shifting goalposts
“Stability” has been the common refrain of leaders of the NC and CPN-UML lately, who are rooting their argument in the frequent change of governments in the last 10 years since the new Constitution. In the latest such change, in July last year, the two largest parties came together to unseat the Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’-led government. They said they would amend the Constitution in such a way that it would ensure a party wins a majority to govern for five years.
“It was clear from the outset that they were aiming to dismantle the PR system. But since they lack the numbers to amend the Constitution, they are now talking about changing the electoral system,” said Tula Shah, a political analyst. “Increasing the threshold would mean reducing the representation of women and the disadvantaged groups, which will be a setback for the principle of inclusivity.”
It requires a two-thirds majority in both chambers of the House — upper and lower — to amend the Constitution. To change the law, a simple majority will suffice. The CPN-UML and NC currently enjoy a comfortable majority in the House of Representatives.
Analysts say the PR system is considered the hallmark of inclusivity in a diverse country like Nepal, and any move to scrap or tweak it will be regressive.
Dr. Baburam Bhattarai, a former Prime Minister and leader of the Nepal Samajwadi Party, says the big parties’ commitment to inclusivity was always in question, and what they are aiming for now just proves that.
“Underneath their constitutional amendment plan lay an ominous intent to scrap the PR system. Now, they are making a futile attempt to increase the threshold,” said Dr. Bhattarai. “To cover up their failure, they are now trying to change the rules of the game halfway.”
Lack of coalition culture
Experts say Nepali parties’ tendency to blame the lack of stability for all ills is flawed and stems from their desire for power.
Chief Election Commissioner Dinesh Chandra Thapaliya recently lashed out at the ruling parties publicly for attempting to increase the threshold.
“The current constitutional provisions and laws are not a barrier to securing a majority for any party,” said Mr. Thapaliya. “If Nepali parties cannot convince their voters to vote them into a majority, how can they find fault with the current system and arrangements?”
Nepal has not seen any government complete its full term ever since the restoration of democracy in 1990. However, it’s not for the lack of a majority for any party in the last three and a half decades. The 1991 and 1999 elections gave the mandate to one party or the other to form a majority government, but the parties’ failure led to the dissolution of the House on both occasions.
“Proportional representation is one of our biggest achievements. Our democracy is an inclusive democracy,” said Mr. Thapaliya. “No law can be enacted by ignoring inclusivity.”
Mr. Thapaliya’s remarks were in response to the two big parties’ push to raise the threshold before presenting a Bill to amend and consolidate the election law, prepared by the Election Commission (EC), in Parliament. Through the bill, the EC is seeking to make some revisions to the current law, including allowing Nepalis living abroad to exercise their franchise and making it mandatory for political parties to field at least 33% women candidates under the FPTP category. It, however, has kept the threshold intact at 3%.
As the winter session is set to begin, the CPN-UML and NC are planning to present the Bill in Parliament by increasing the threshold.
Dr. Bhattarai said blaming the electoral system for their failure and lack of political culture is unethical on the part of the big parties. “Any attempt to increase the threshold would meet with resistance,” he said. “And even if they do manage to increase it, it is not possible for big parties like the NC or the UML to win a majority.”
Dangerous games
Raising the threshold means the bigger parties, which often tend to field the privileged and men unless necessitated by the law, will get an edge. On the contrary, smaller and regional parties field the marginalised, and they will suffer.
If the number of seats for the two big parties like the NC and the CPN-UML were recalculated based on their current vote shares with the increased threshold of 5%, they would gain three more seats in the current Parliament—37 for UML and 35 for NC. Regional parties like Janata Samajbadi, Janmat Party, and Nagari Unmukti Party would lose all their seats, resulting in zero representation.
Analysts say the idea of increasing the threshold is even more dangerous because it will reduce the representation of women and historically excluded groups, even as it will fail to achieve what the bigger parties want — a stable government.
“In the pursuit of this chimera called stability lies the risk of undermining inclusivity, which is the cornerstone of Nepal’s 2015 Constitution,” said Dr. Bhattarai. “Instead of improving our democracy to make it more inclusive, progressive and refined, ruling parties are heading down the path of regression.”
Analysts also point to the underlying high-handedness in their attempt to change the electoral laws. According to them, beyond representation and inclusivity, the Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to organise, form a political party, get elected, and have political representation.
“They can’t snatch this constitutional right of the people by finding a loophole in the laws,” said Mr. Shah. “Stability is a subterfuge. Nepal’s ruling parties and their so-called elite male leaders have not been able to accept the fact that the marginalised communities have access to power.”
Pointing to political parties’ past failures, Mr. Thapaliya, the Chief Election Commissioner, even questioned what “stability” actually means.
“In our country, every time there was a majority of a single party, the Parliament faced a sudden death,” said Mr. Thapaliya. “Do not these parties need to justify their past actions when they say stability can be achieved only when there is a majority of a single party?”
(Sanjeev Satgainya is an independent journalist based in Kathmandu)
Published – January 29, 2025 05:00 am IST
