Lowering or even removing the threshold altogether would allow a wider range of voices to enter the parliament, better reflecting Nepal's commitment to inclusivity
Nepal's electoral system has sparked ongoing debates, particularly since the 2015 Constitution introduced proportional representation (PR) as a means of promoting political inclusivity. PR was designed to ensure that marginalized groups and smaller parties have a voice in governance, fostering a more equitable distribution of power. However, the introduction of a threshold for parliamentary representation threatens to undermine this intent. The proposed increase in the threshold from 3 per cent to 5 per cent raises serious concerns about fair representation and the fundamental principles of Nepal's constitution.
Proportional representation enables political parties to gain legislative seats in proportion to the votes they receive, ensuring that smaller parties-especially those representing regional or ideological interests-are not excluded. The system was intended to create a pluralistic democracy, where marginalized communities, indigenous groups and other underrepresented voices could actively participate in governance.
At the core of PR is inclusivity. Smaller parties, despite lacking widespread national support, play a significant role in Nepal's political landscape. Many of these parties focus on issues impacting minorities, remote regions, or specific ideological movements that might otherwise be overlooked. By allowing these smaller parties to secure representation in the legislature, PR strengthens democracy and prevents political monopolisation by a few dominant parties.
One of the key challenges to Nepal's PR system is the imposition of a minimum vote percentage required for parties to enter parliament. Currently set at 3 per cent, this threshold has been criticised for favouring larger parties at the expense of smaller, regional ones. The proposal to increase it to 5 per cent would exacerbate the issue, making it nearly impossible for smaller parties to secure seats in the parliament.
Critics argue that such a threshold undermines the spirit of proportional representation by disproportionately disadvantaging independent candidates and small parties that represent specific ethnic, linguistic or regional interests. These groups, though having substantial local support, often lack the national reach necessary to meet the threshold.
The impact of the threshold goes beyond political competition-it strikes at the heart of Nepal's commitment to inclusivity and fairness. Many smaller parties represent marginalised communities that rely on proportional representation to make their voices heard in national politics, as they face challenges competing in direct elections dominated by well-funded, established parties.
Nepal's constitution guarantees proportional representation and political inclusivity. Article 84 specifically calls for a system that reflects the nation's diversity. However, imposing a threshold contradicts this principle, making it harder for smaller, yet significant, political movements to gain representation.
In 2021, Nepal's Supreme Court emphasised that electoral reforms should promote inclusivity and fairness. While the court did not specifically challenge the 3 per cent threshold, its ruling reinforced the importance of maintaining a democratic system grounded in proportionality. A higher threshold could face legal challenges, as it may be seen as a violation of the constitutional guarantee of equal representation.
To address the concerns surrounding the electoral threshold while ensuring political stability, there are several potential solutions that could be explored. One option is to lower or even remove the threshold altogether. This would allow a wider range of voices to enter the parliament, better reflecting Nepal's commitment to inclusivity as outlined in its Constitution. By eliminating the minimum percentage required for representation, smaller parties and regional interests could have a more equitable opportunity to participate in governance.
Another approach could be to implement regional representation instead of a national threshold. By introducing a regional threshold, parties with strong local support could secure seats in the parliament, even if they do not meet the national threshold. This would ensure that regional concerns and specific local issues are adequately represented at the national level.
A third solution could be the introduction of a weighted representation system. This would allocate additional seats to underrepresented groups, ensuring that marginalised communities, such as indigenous groups or minorities, are not excluded from the political process-even if their parties fail to meet the national threshold. This approach would safeguard the representation of these vital communities within the legislative body.
Lastly, a comprehensive review of Nepal's electoral laws could be conducted, aiming to strike a balance between maintaining political stability and promoting inclusivity. Such a reform would ensure that both large and small parties have equal opportunities to participate in the political arena, ensuring a truly representative and fair democracy.
Nepal's electoral threshold remains a contentious issue. While some argue that it prevents excessive political fragmentation, critics emphasise its discriminatory effects on smaller parties and marginalised communities. Raising the threshold to 5 per cent would deepen these concerns, reducing the diversity of political representation and undermining the constitutional promise of inclusivity.
For Nepal's democracy to truly reflect its pluralistic society, electoral reforms must prioritise fairness and equal representation. Instead of silencing smaller voices, the system should ensure that all citizens-regardless of political or regional affiliation-have a fair chance to participate in governance. Only then can Nepal's democracy fulfill its promise of true proportional representation.
