Is Mixed Electoral System Flawed?

With the formation of new coalition government involving the two largest political parties – Nepali Congress (NC) and CPN-UML – Nepal has entered into a phase of another political experiment under the new constitution promulgated in 2015. The NC-UML alliance bears both risks and opportunities. It can restore much-desired political stability if the allies work in close coordination and with broader understanding. But its failure will pose a question to the efficacy of constitution. Any attempt to amend the national charter without national consensus can open a Pandora’s Box, igniting new societal conflicts. 

It was a dramatic twist of events when the first and second largest parties in the federal parliament inked a seven-point deal at midnight on July 1 to form a joint government having around two-thirds majority. The two parties have not yet formally made public their agreement but their leaders claimed their parties came together to constitute a national consensus government to ensure stability and amend the constitution. Apparently, the NC and UML were enraged by CPN-Maoist Centre chair and former prime minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal Prachanda’s mercurial character. Prachanda frequently shifted alliances for the political expediency. The two parties took umbrage at his claim that he wielded the magic number to make them play second fiddle to the third largest party. As the NC sensed that the UML was not coming to terms with the Maoist Centre due to various reasons, it rushed to Oli with a proposal of forging the alliance.

Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli is likely to disclose factors behind breaking UML’s partnership with the Maoist Centre as well as the goals of the government in the near future. As the Maoist Centre, Rastriya Swatantra Party and CPN-Unified Socialist decided to sit on the Opposition benches, there is a fat chance that the coalition government will take a shape of national consensus. The new alliance had requested all parties to be the part of its government. However, the Maoist Centre has demanded that the NC and UML should first rescind their agreement. 

Two-party system

UML general secretary Shankar Pokharel has been batting for a two-party system like that of the USA, the UK and India. But this risky bid is fraught with formidable challenges and also goes against the grain of the constitution. For this, the two big parties reportedly want to weed out the presence of smaller parties that succeeded to make it to the parliament mainly on the strength of the proportional representation (PR) electoral system. If the NC-UML informal accord is anything to go by, the two big parties have made their mind to reduce the number of lawmakers elected under the PR category or take the PR into the National Assembly (NA). Similarly, the understanding has also been reportedly made to increase the threshold percentage to become a national party. 

But such a move will meet a strong resistance from the smaller parties. Barring the NC and UML, all other parties will put up a common stance in favour of PR provision, a key political achievement enshrined in the constitution written by the elected Constituent Assembly (CA). Most of the smaller parties that have now jumped on the bandwagon of NC-UML alliance are guided by opposite ideologies and agendas. The Madhes-based parties such as Janata Samajbadi Party (JSP), Loktantrik Samajabadi Party (LSM) and Janamat Party are in favour of strong provinces and their greater autonomy when it comes to exercising the rights and powers stipulated by the constitution. On the other hand, Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) and Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) stand against the provinces, terming sub-national governments as the white elephants that squander a lion’s share of taxpayers’ money.

Going a step further, the RPP has been demanding the restoration of monarchy and Hindu state. How can a pro-monarchical RPP collaborate with the UML and NC in the statute amendment?  Now smaller parties are portrayed as spoilsport in destabilising national politics. As these parties rose to the scene on the back of PR system, some are creating narratives to discredit the PR as sources of instability. So there are strong lobbying groups inside the NC and UML to remove the PR provision and elect all lawmakers on the basis of first-past-the-post (FPTP).

Intra-party feud

Following the adoption of the 1990 constitution, the country virtually practiced two-party system until the interim constitution of Nepal 2007 that introduced PR system replaced it. But the stability remained elusive even though the NC garnered comfortable majority twice under the FPTP system. The NC-led majority government collapsed in 1994 due to intra-party bickering. The NC again secured majority in general polls in 1999 but the factional feud within the party reached a climax, causing a vertical split in it. The raging Maoist insurgency turned the parliamentary system dysfunctional. Even when all lawmakers of the House of Representatives (HoR) were elected under the FPTP category, Nepal could not experience stability in 17-year of multiparty democracy. 

The PR system, first applied in the 2008 CA polls, played a crucial role in bringing the representatives from marginalised and underrepresented communities into the highest decision-making body of the state. But the parties abused it by allotting the PR seats to the loyalists and close relatives of their top leaders. Hence, the problems do not lie in constitution or its mixed electoral system but in their inability to work as per the letter and spirit of the statute. What the parties need is constitutional character, political integrity and accountability towards people. Until the leaders imbibe these virtues, the stability, good governance and prosperity continue to be a pipedream of the people, no matter which electoral system the country practices. 

(The author is Deputy Executive Editor of this daily.)