© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Around 18 million eligible voters will vote in Nepal on Sunday to elect new federal and provincial legislatures, the second election since the country’s controversial constitution was promulgated in 2015.
One hundred and sixty-five members of the 275-member federal parliament will be elected through a first-past-the post (FPTP) system; the remaining 110 seats will be filled by a system of proportional representation (PR).
A total 330 seats in the seven provincial houses will be decided directly; the remaining 220 seats will be filled by proportional representation.
Each voter will stamp four ballots and drop them in different boxes — one each for FPTP candidates for the federal parliament and provincial legislature; and one each for parties at the centre and the provinces. The number of votes polled by each party will determine the number of seats it gets in the central and provincial assemblies under the PR system.
For a party to be recognised as a national party and secure seats under PR, it has to win at least one seat under the FPTP in the federal parliament, and at least 3 per cent of votes. The Election Commission decided to hold a single-day election despite fears of violence, mismanagement, and possible rigging because “it would be more pragmatic and cost saving”.
Nepal has seen 32 governments in as many years of democratic exercise since 1990 — and 10 governments in the 14 years since the monarchy was abolished in 2008. The country’s leaders had then made collective promises of a “stable government, consolidation of democracy, economic prosperity, and corruption free governance”. They stand thoroughly discredited — and not many people expect Sunday’s election to bring lasting political stability.
The elections are a fight between two coalitions.
There is the ruling coalition led by Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba’s Nepali Congress (NC), which includes Pushpa Kamal Dahal Prachanda’s Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist Centre (CPN-MC) and Madhav Kumar Nepal’s Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Socialist (CPN-US).
The opposition coalition is led by the Communist Party of Nepal-United Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML) of former Prime Minister K P Sharma Oli, who hopes to return to the post after the election.
The UML has aligned with the Rashtriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) in a half-dozen seats. The monarchist and Hindu nationalist RPP is contesting over 150 seats under the FPTP system.
Smaller parties from the Terai have allied with the two major coalitions, more with an eye on a slice of power than to seek the greater autonomy that they championed earlier. In an expression of resentment against the national parties, corruption, and the absence of accountability, around 1,200 independents are in the race for the federal parliament.
Deuba became Prime Minister in July 2021 after the government under Oli, which was elected with a nearly two-thirds majority in 2017, suffered a series of setbacks, splits, and revolts. Oli’s attempt to cling to power by dissolving the House twice was backed by President Bidya Devi Bhandari, but the Supreme Court held both dissolutions unconstitutional, and directed the President to administer the oath of office to Deuba.
Oli has repeatedly denounced the judiciary as partisan, and indicated that he would assert the Prime Minister’s power to seek a fresh mandate at will, if elected.
While there is no visible opposition to Oli’s leadership from within, Deuba faces several challengers to his leadership of the Nepali Congress, including general secretary Gagan Thapa, who have staked claim to the prime ministership in case the coalition returns to power.
Deuba (76) has been Prime Minister five times, while Oli and Prachanda have held the position twice each. Their tenures were cut short by rifts within their parties or coalitions each time.
Strange bedfellows
Prachanda led the insurgency against the state for a decade between 1996 and 2006, and clashed with Deuba who, as Prime Minister for several of those years, offered cash rewards for “Maoists’ heads”. The large number of the 17,000 individuals killed during the civil war belonged to Deuba’s Nepali Congress. Deuba himself survived an ambush by the Maoists.
The two men are now allies. The Maoists have been able to stall the transitional justice — an essential promise of the peace agreement signed in November 2006 — and their investigation for human rights abuses. As the Maoists have lost strength in parliament and politics, Prachanda’s decision to shift from his old constituency is seen to indicate his party’s depleting support.
In the last elections, 50 per cent of votes went to the communist parties, but the United Socialists and Maoists that were then part of the Oli-led dispensation have now switched sides.
There is palpable public anger — a powerful “No, not again” campaign on social media has held all top leaders of the major parties equally responsible for the prevailing mess and corruption in the executive and judiciary, and the alleged loss of respect for the Nepali passport overseas.
The Election Commission was forced to retract its demand that the social media campaign be stopped, following criticism that it had been silent on the alleged involvement of the three top leaders in major scandals and financial irregularities.
The Nepali Congress has promised to lower the age for social security to 65 from 70. Amid criticism that Deuba’s government has taken a pro-US stance in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the Prime Minister has said Nepal would remain non-aligned in the context of global security, and will maintain a balanced relationship with its immediate neighbours.
Prachanda endorses Oli’s foreign policy stance. The Maoists want to change the current ‘mixed’ electoral system to 100 per cent proportional representation, and a directly elected Executive President.
Oli, who has a penchant for making non-serious promises of development, has reiterated that he would build a Tibet-Nepal railway.
India, which used to play a decisive role in Nepal’s internal politics until 2005, lost its clout after it collaborated with the Maoists whom it had declared to be terrorists, thus presenting the Nepali Congress with a fait accompli; and played a role in the exit of the monarchy, the institution that it had worked with.
New Delhi does not have a trusted institutional ally in Nepal at the moment. As of now, it is watching the developments as they unfold.
Oli has promised to bring Kalapani, Lipulekh, and Limpiadhura in Uttarakhand under Nepal’s control, if he wins. A new tenure for Oli may not be different from his two earlier tenures — which saw a deterioration of relations between India and Nepal. In 2015, the promulgation of the constitution resulted in an economic blockade by India and, in 2018, the territorial dispute broke out.
Since 2006, China has worked towards becoming a major player in Nepal — increasing its investments in multiple sectors, and then seeking a favourable regime in Kathmandu. As tensions rose with India, Oli’s government signed a trade and transit treaty with China in 2016, President Xi Jinping visited Nepal in October 2019, and in September 2022, ahead of the National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party, National Assembly chief Li Zhanshu held talks with Nepal’s leaders, including Oli and Prachanda.
At stake in the elections
Nepal’s instability, the absence of accountability on the part of governments, and massive levels of corruption have discredited political parties and their leaders like never before. The erosion in the authority of the state and increasing distrust in the judiciary — the Chief Justice remains under suspension — has impacted Nepal’s economic prospects. Around 500,000 youths leave the country to work as labourers in the Gulf every year, and more than a hundred die every month, according to official data. Promises by parties to double the GDP or triple the per capita income have failed to inject hope among the youth.
Parties had found it easy to blame the monarchy for Nepal’s problems and instability. But the situation has not changed after the abolition of the monarchy. To many, elections seem like a disappointing ritual — and one more opportunity for discredited leaders to do more of the same.
