The interim constitution (IC) has been amended for the third time as per agreement reached between the seven-party alliance on December 23, 2007, and the electoral laws have been amended accordingly to facilitate the forthcoming CA election. Due to stubborn opposition of the Nepali Congress (NC) to the change of the electoral system from mixed electoral system to full proportional representation (PR) system or Mixed Member proportional system, the system remained unaltered in spite of the tremendous pressure from the Maoists, CPN-UML and other fringe parties for the same.

Of course, the total number of seats to be contested was increased to 335 from 240 under PR component. The seat ratio between the First-Past-the-Post system (FPtP) and PR component has been changed to 42% and 58% respectively in place of 50% each. Now, the elected CA will be a house of 601 members in place of 497as accepted earlier. It is obvious that the change in the number of the seats to be contested under PR component will hardly carry any meaning as it will hardly ensure the inclusion of the excluded in FPtP results.

Simultaneously, it will also not make up for the disproportional outcome of the FPtP results. Of course, it will facilitate the inclusion of more elected representatives in the CA. If the intention of the SPA was to increase the number of the total seats, it could have been done easily as it is at liberty to amend the IC as many times it wishes. It could have increased the number to 900 as well as its authority and decisions can hardly be challenged.

Election experts feel that from the very beginning the political leaders were never clear about the concepts of representation and participation, as there is a thin line dividing the two. Representation always includes participation but not vice versa. These two are not mutually exclusive. There can be participation without getting formally represented, as representation always needs approval of the represented.

Political leaders fail to distinguish between PR electoral system and people’s participation on a proportional basis.

PR system is used to elect representatives, whereas participation is involvement in any activity by any one or many or all stakeholders simultaneously not necessarily as duly elected representative/s. PR is a system that gives each party a number of seats in relation to the number of votes its candidates receive. Seats are allocated on the basis of the votes received from the electors.

On the other hand, proportion generally means a part or a share of a whole. Hence, proportional participation means a participation wherein an individual or a group has a part or share of the whole. Proportional Participation can be ensured through different means - nomination or selection or through indirect election, but not necessarily through direct election.

Proportionality can be viewed from different angles. It, generally, stands for the relationship or measurement of one thing to another in size, shape, amount and number etc. In order to have the CA represented even by a small group/caste with about two thousand members, then other groups having four thousand members must have two seats proportionally. Accordingly, rest of the seats can be allotted on the basis of two thousand per seat making the house enormously big.

Moreover, if every group/caste is accepted as a unit to be represented, it should be termed as their inclusion or participation not as proportional representation. There are several methods to ensure participation — positive action or reservation among others. It can hardly

be called proportional representation. Proportionality of the representation in the

CA appears to have been ensured through PR system to the communities even without their participations. Seats will be allotted to the communities without their participation in the election as per the provisions of the electoral law. This is a kind of indirect reservation. It is definitely against the spirit of PR system.

Moreover, defining the percentage of seats for each category that has several castes or groups within its fold has led to a precarious situation. For example, in Dalit and Madhesi categories, there are several castes or sub-castes. Hence, seats will have to be redistributed in accordance with the percentage allocated for them. It is all the more surprising that the electoral Act does not mention the names of castes/groups falling under each category on priority basis. The political parties have deliberately empowered themselves to change the names of the candidates thrice to suit their interests under the guise of the percentage of seats reserved for them. This has deprived the voters of their right to know the candidates. As a matter of fact this has made the closed list system a mockery in Nepal.

Prof Mishra is ex-election commissioner