Federalism, Republicanism and Inclusiveness are the pillars of the Constitution of Nepal, 2015. However, there have been questions about the success and failure of the present constitution as the people have witnessed frequent government changes and development stagnation. People are frustrated with the outcome as the economic condition deteriorates, public debt increases and regular administrative expenditure skyrockets beyond the limits of public revenue. Hence, the federal system of governance is often blamed for its perceived failure.
When the present government was formed three months ago, bringing together the Nepali Congress and the CPN (UML), the stated reason for the new coalition was to stabilize the country and review the constitution for potential amendments.
It is believed that the present system of governance under the constitutional provision cannot give a single majority government and political stability. If we look at the global experience wherever the PR electoral system is in place, there is hardly a single majority government running the country. The best example is in Israel, where forming a coalition has become the established practice.
In Israel, voters cast their ballots for a particular political party, which never produced a majority government. The party gets seats according to the percentage of votes in the election. The threshold is 3.25 percent, below this number there will be no representation in the 120-member Knesset.
For Nepal, the Dutch system could be a reckoning example. As in Nepal, the Netherlands also has a threshold system to get seats in the House of Representatives and a proportional representation system albeit different from Nepal with party-list proportional representation. The threshold is 1/150th of the total number of valid votes. In a bicameral House, elections are held for the House of Representatives only for a four-year term by proportional representation. Over the years, hardly any party has secured an overall majority to form a government. Candidates of the House of Representatives are chosen from the party list.
Under the new constitution, Nepal has conducted two general elections with a mixed electoral system without a single party’s majority in the House of Representatives and Provincial Assemblies. In these nine years, we have seen governments frequently change with the coalition partners changing often in short intervals. Recognizing the constitutional constraints and instability within the current electoral system, it has been widely realized that a constitutional amendment is necessary to end political chaos, uncertainty, and indecision, and pave the way for the country's progress and prosperity.
While drafting the 2015 Constitution, the major parties, particularly the Nepali Congress and CPN-UML, may have envisioned winning elections and governing the country under the current mixed electoral system. However, two general elections have proven this system ineffective, leading to hung parliaments and frequent government changes, resulting in political instability. During this period, the most acclaimed but defamed became the PR system with horse trading for party tickets and nominations in the House of Representatives under the PR category representing different groups.
Regarding the constitutional amendment, the parties need to review and consider the experience of electoral shortcomings. To address the shortcomings, rearranging the PR seats in both the House of Representatives and the National Assembly would be the best solution. Equally important is to downsize the number of representations under the PR system from forty to ten or fifteen percent only.
Inclusiveness is the beauty of this Constitution. Inclusiveness in the Constitution is a newfound practical means to give space for the democratic transition and toward institutionalizing it. Inclusiveness, philosophically, under the political system, is a means to correct the historical injustice inflicted on Indigenous, untouchables, marginalized and backward communities. However, the political parties have misused it for their political gain.
Regarding the constitutional amendment, the parties need to review and consider the experience of electoral shortcomings. To address the shortcomings, rearranging the PR seats in both the House of Representatives and the National Assembly would be the best solution. Equally important is to downsize the number of representations under the PR system from forty to ten or fifteen percent only.
The House of Representatives needs to be truly representative through direct voting instead of sixty percent from direct and forty percent reserved seats for proportional representation. The National Assembly needs to reassess its representation since this Assembly, historically and practically, was designed and brought in place to represent the matured, experienced, professional, marginalized, oppressed and Indigenous people.
Other countries, from Israel to Sweden to Denmark, have very similar models, though usually with a higher threshold for getting in, which slightly advantages larger parties. In PR systems it is rare for any party to have a majority in parliament. And that means they need a coalition. Of course, this does create instability- PR systems are known for regular prime ministerial changes and shifting coalitions in government. Nepal is also following suit. But for the infant democracy, frequent changes in the government invite unwanted elements to play their cards.
Interestingly, Norway, the Netherlands and Belgium, all three European countries, follow the Proportional Representation system as their electoral system and under the Parliamentary system of governance with the monarchy as Head of the State. Belgium has a federal system of governance as well as the Monarchy.
This inclusiveness of the proportional representation system generally has higher public spending- either because more parties mean more interest in different types of spending or because PR systems tend to have left-wing parties in government more often than majoritarian systems such as in the UK or USA. Countries with PR seem also to have lower inequality and more policy instability. They may have weaker or less decisive governments than their majoritarian rivals.
Nepal’s slow pace of developmental growth is due to frequent changes in the government resulting from the mixed electoral system. It also has hindered democratic progress, as public discontent with the current system grows louder. The frustrated youths are calling for a constitutional monarchy under the parliamentary system of governance. It seems the undercurrent for political change is rising and any events may flare up into mass movement causing a reversal of the current system. Before the situation deteriorates, both the ruling and opposition parties should consider necessary changes to the system, including the electoral system.
Removing the provincial system, which is like a white elephant to take care of, and making the local bodies more powerful with the devolution of constitutional rights would be the right steps at the moment. Similarly, the allocation of seats under proportional seats has caused the electoral results unexpected and unrepresentative, which needs to be reviewed and amended wisely.
The House of Representatives as suggested by the name and will of the people should be a House of directly elected representatives. The House's inability and inefficiency are evident in its failure to pass necessary bills due to division among its committees, which lack a majority for any party. The threshold, as the parties are contemplating increasing from the existing three percent to ten, should follow the Dutch system by minimizing it allowing smaller parties to have their representation as a national party.
(Mr. Bartaula is a former Diplomatic Officer of the Government of Nepal.)
.
