Electoral Reform On The Anvil?

The grand coalition government comprised of Nepali Congress and CPN-UML has announced to review, among others, the prevailing mixed electoral system that blends first-past-the-post (FPTP) and proportional representation (PR) mode of elections. To this end, the major parties are ready to carefully review the provisions of the constitution and make necessary amendments deemed necessary for what is called as progressive democratic reforms in the political system. The major parties seem especially resentful of the PR system that, according to the NC and UML leaders, has hindered to produce the single party led stable government in the country. 

The major parties have been compelled to negotiate with smaller political groups and concede to their demands to secure larger share of spoils in the process of instituting governments both at federal and provincial levels. The parties with marginal political take tend to apply undue and disproportionate pressures to extract major concessions and ride roughshod on country’s politics. The political parties steeped in to switch loyalties for smaller political gains and petty interests, as a consequence of which rise and fall of governments became a kind of regular occurrence. 

Reforms

The NC leaders have been arguing for long on the need to introduce reforms in the existing electoral system, stressing that this has been at the root of the festering political instability and fluidity in the country. Contending that the current electoral system by its very inherent propensity and character does not enable a political party to bag  a  majority of seats in the parliament to form the government, NC leaders in particular have  contended that this has resulted  into unprincipled hobnobbing among the disparate political groups for the sake of power. 

The country should revert back, according to NC leaders, to the majoritarian electoral system to ensure that political parties can win mandate to rule on their own strength without relying on the support of the political forces that are ideologically estranged to each other. The FPTP typology of majoritarian electoral system gives domineering role to the political party that takes the majority of seats in the parliament, thereby leaving no space for smaller political groups for bargaining leverage and performs a meaningful role. The political minorities are not allowed any space and ground as collaborators in the affairs of the state. This usually favours the larger party and parties with strong regional support, to the detriment of smaller parties without a geographically concentrated base. 

How justifiable it would be to roll back the mixed electoral system and adopt the FPTP that was discarded after serious deliberations, citing several weaknesses inherent in it needs a broad based deliberations. The parties like CPN-Maoist Centre that are opposed to the NC-UML proposition have also argued for direct elected presidency and the parliament elected through proportional representation. The country thus lacks a unanimity among the political actors and stakeholders on the mode of elections and governance. 

The issue of direct elected presidency was, in fact, debated in the 601-member Constituent Assembly elected to write the constitution - the basic law of the land. Finally, the parliamentary model was chosen for the purpose of settling into compromise among the key political groups. The merit of direct elected presidency would vest in the president authority to choose the ministers at his or her own choice or discretion. As a result, the government would not have to depend on the vote of legislature to survive and function. Moreover, the kind of foul bargaining  and the allegedly horse-trading practices that are involved in the making of the ministers and other high level official appointments will not occur in the direct elected presidency.     

In the presidential democracy, the executive arm is separate from a legislature. Like the president’s fixed term of office, the legislature, too, stays on for a fixed term of office and can never be dissolved or suspended before its tenure completes. However, presidential democracy has several shortcomings as well. Presidential democracy has authoritarian bias and can cause authoritarianism to grow and seek to vindicate its role. Moreover, the president and the legislature have similar mandates from the public. This means that conflicts between the executive and the legislative arms of government might prove hard to reconcile. The separation of powers of a presidential democracy sets apart the legislature. This separation is likely to create an unpleasant and long-lasting political gridlock whenever the legislative majority and the head of state come from various parties. 

Probity and sincerity

In the US, such a situation has taken place several times. Additionally, these political stalemates minimise accountability by giving the legislature and the president a chance to play blame games. In these cases of political gridlock, presidential democracies fail to offer the desired accountability. It is easy for either the legislature or the president to escape mistakes by shifting blame to the other. It shows that the presidential democracy is not free from problems or constraints. Both parliamentary and presidential democracies have their own respective merits and demerits. No one mode of governance is better than the other. 

When we discuss to choose appropriate kind of electoral system and model of governance, it is important to weigh upon pros and cons of each model and take decisions. While it is important to choose appropriate institutions, it should be noted that the democratic institutions cannot work unless they are handled with highest level of probity and sincerity. In Nepal there are opinions that it is not the democratic institutions and mode of elections but the actors and leaders who rule the country are responsible for the messy state of affairs. NC and UML leaders need to go into examining their own tendencies, actions and behaviours before rushing to tweaking into the institutions and mode of democratic governance in the country.  

(The author is presently associated with Policy Research Institute (PRI) as a senior research fellow.  rijalmukti@gmail.com)