The parties have made a mockery of the PR provision by largely nominating influential personalities who had repeatedly enjoyed state favour, blatantly contradicting the SC verdict
During the 2017 local election, the representatives of Bharatpur Metropolitan Mayor candidate and CPN (Maoist Centre) leader Renu Dahal destroyed the uncounted ballot papers inside the vote-counting centre, allegedly out of fear of her impending defeat. At the first instance, this constituted a grave violation of election directives, warranting the immediate annulment of Dahal's candidacy. However, the Election Commission (EC) blatantly ordered a re-election which she ultimately won.
The decision of the EC was indistinctly condemned by the people and intellectual community. However, the underlying factors behind the EC's blunder were never aptly discussed. Many do not know that the sheer personal gluttony of the then chief Election Commissioner Ayodhi Prasad Yadav had influenced this decision. Yadav's daughter-in-law, a non-political entity, was included on the CPN-Maoist Centre's proportional representation (PR) list for provincial assembly elections. This breach of conflict of interest by Yadav was never intellectually discussed at a larger forum.
This is just a representative example of how our political leadership and influential personalities are exploiting the PR system. Article 42 of the Constitution of Nepal guarantees social justice through positive discrimination of socially backward women, Dalit, indigenous people, indigenous nationalities, Madhesi, Tharu, minorities, persons with disabilities, marginalised communities, Muslims, backward classes, gender and sexual minorities, youths, farmers, labourers, oppressed or citizens of backward regions, and indigent members of the Khas Arya community.
In August 2024, the Supreme Court (SC) had issued a directive that the PR system should ensure genuine reflection of the constitutional principles of inclusivity and rights of the marginalised groups. Earlier, the Constitutional Bench of the SC had directed the political parties and state authorities to nominate PR lawmakers in a way that it respects the spirit of the Constitution – meaningful inclusion of under-represented communities rather than merely filling quotas. Despite these directives, the political parties had seemingly nominated influential individuals, businessmen, kins of the political leadership to the PR. Unfortunately, the SC and EC never reprimanded the political parties on this issue.
Recently, the political parties have submitted the closed list of their prospective PR lawmakers ahead of the scheduled March 5 elections. It was expected that the political parties would act as per the essence of the SC directives. It was logical as the federal election is going to be held after the Gen-Z movement that denounced bad governance, state-sponsored corruption, nepotism, and oligarchy. Sadly, political parties seem to have disregarded the Gen-Z movement's agenda, treating the upcoming election as if it were merely a regular, on-schedule contest. The PR list of the political parties – established or alternative-claiming – have gravely violated the SC directives on Article 42 of the constitution.
The respective clusters of the PR list of the political parties largely include influential personalities, super-rich businessmen, and relatives and close aides of the leaders. The established parties had always been doing this, but the alternative-claiming parties have overtaken the established parties. The new parties blossoming by cashing in on the sentiments of the frustrated voters have severely lagged on this issue.
Despite this blunder, the new parties might momentarily gain the trust of the frustrated people, but the impartial intellectuals are condemning this action. The leadership of the new political parties seems to have realised this blunder and have publicly vowed to improve the PR list. However, once the PR closed list has been submitted to the EC cannot be fundamentally changed.
It is disappointing to see that individuals who received the most votes in the inter-party primary elections were moved down the PR list yet are still supporting the questionable decisions of their political leadership. It is even more appalling that the same individuals who once loudly condemned supporters and inferior members of established parties as "slaves of their leadership" are now defending their own leaders when the PR system is blatantly violated. What they may see as loyalty or confidence in their leaders, the public sees as blind subservience – a betrayal of principle and conscience.
Recently, the three-alternative claiming political forces, Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), Balen Sah faction, and Kulman Ghising-led Ujyalo Nepal Party, have united to form a larger alternative force to lock horns with the established political forces. Superficially, this seems to be a prodigious political strategy, but a closer examination reveals a deeply troubling reality. The agreement between these political forces appears to be driven solely by a power-sharing agenda, with no attention to strategies for good governance or financial reform. In fact, it reads like a mere imitation of the pre- and post-election agreements of the established parties. While this false start may seem advantageous to the new political forces in the short term, it is unlikely to lead them to a sustainable or meaningful outcome.
To summarise, the political parties have made a mockery of the PR provision by largely nominating influential personalities who had repeatedly enjoyed state favour. This blatantly contradicts the SC verdict on PR provision. Hence, the EC should proactively address this issue by cancelling the nominations of individuals who do not belong to the under-represented communities in each cluster. Else, the new parliament formed after the March 5 election will again be a club of elites, social influencers, and kins of political leaders.
Dr Joshi is a senior scientist and independent opinion maker based in Germany
pushpa.joshi@gmail.com