No Flaws In Electoral System

For Immanuel Kant, politics is a moral vocation and morality should be the paramount concern of politics and politicians. However, that is not the case in the present day politics in the world. In the public eyes, politics, now, is viewed as an unpredictable enterprise. Politics is no longer a philanthropy but appears to be lucrative enterprise motivated by personal and partisan interest, wherein morality, values and principles have taken a back seat. This is not an isolated case of Nepal but a general trend everywhere in the world. 

However, this trend is more in developing and least developed countries. According to US International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, state of global democracy is on the decline. Similarly, the Economic Intelligence Unit (EIU), a research wing of the Economist Group, says in its annual global democracy index that the overall state of democracy is eroding. According to EIU report, currently 45.4 per cent global population lives under somewhat democratic system but the quality of democracy is in a downward spiral. 

Gone are the old days of politics of values, principles and sacrifice. This is the age of market politics, wherein profits and dividend count more than anything. The present day politics is Weberian and Machiavellian. According to Max Weber, the state is human community that claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. Machiavelli goes one step further and says principal goal of politics and politicians is to gain power and glory. “If one achieves glory, all other misdeeds will be forgotten and forgiven,” Machiavelli says adding “the end does not always justify the means, but if the ends are glorious the means can be justified”. 

Machiavellian way

 Politics in the contemporary world has gone Machiavellian way, and anything and everything that is applied to gain political power is being justified. Politics is no longer governance for the larger good of the people but an enterprise for profit. Politics is being viewed as a lucrative business that guarantees quick returns for those who are at the helms of affairs. In the present day society, politics is to capture power by hook or by crook and use and abuse power for the benefit of those who control it. Nepal is not an exception. 

It is said that strangers often become bedfellows in politics and more so in Nepal.  The present electoral system we have adopted in Nepal is often blamed to have contributed to the present state of politics wherein parties and politicians often change alliance and allegiance overnight, due to which a new era of uncertainty and instability has crept in.  However, it is not the election but the attitude and intent of political actors are primarily responsible for the political mismatch and misnomer. The pain to be out of power and pleasure to be in power are the primary and principal culprit behind frequent changes of government in Nepal. This is not the case of any particular party and leader but goes with all political parties and leaders. 

We have adopted a hybrid electoral system — mix of first-past-the-post (FPTP) and proportional system. In the proportional electoral system, there is a little chance of a single party getting majority to form the government. This requires coalition and collaboration among different political parties. Coalition government is not the choice but a compulsion dictated by the electoral system. In the last 20 months, coalition changed four times and still nobody knows how long the present coalition would last. This is purely owing to power hungry politicians devoid of principles, values and ideology. What we need is to develop democratic coalition culture strictly based on ideology, principles and values.

Free and fair elections are the bedrock of democracy through which people freely choose their representatives for governing the country. In democracy, majority rules and minority remains to be watchdog. In case one single party does not win majority, a coalition of two or more parties join hands to form the government. That is the general rule in democracy - be it FPTP or proportional representation system. Both the systems have their merits and demerits. In the first-past-the-post system, certain party can win majority but that may not always be the rule. There are instances when the first-past-the-post elections, too, have produced hung parliaments in different countries requiring coalition government. 

Immoral tactics

Nepal had adopted first-past-the-post electoral system after the political change in 1990. The general election in 1994 produced a hung parliament. The four years following 1994 election saw a frequent changes of coalition and government during which all kinds of moral and immoral tactics were used to retain power. In our immediate neighbour India too, Modi is currently heading a coalition government as his Bharatiya Janata Party failed to garner required majority in recent election. India’s electoral system is first-past-the-post one.  Thus, the FPTP is not panacea of all our political ills we have seen after Nepal was declared as a democratic republic. The real problem is not with the system but with the behaviour of our parties and leaders. 

Proportional electoral system is good but this system was misused by Nepali leaders. This system makes political representation more inclusive, which is a must in a genuine democracy. The FPTP system is winner-takes-all type in which majority may always not rule. Even if certain party may win majority seats, it may not have won majority votes. In the case of several candidates in the fray, one candidate that gets most votes is declared winner, no matter whether  he or she is elected with majority or not. But in proportional system each and every vote has its value and representation.

 The fundamental flaw is in the selection of the candidates in the proportionate system. In the name of proportionate representation, those who are either relatives or are close to the principal leaders, have reaped the benefit whereas the needy people have been left out. Instead of doing away with the proportionate system, it would be wise if we make it more systematic.

(The author is former editor of this daily and former ambassador to Denmark). lamsalyubanath@gmail.com)