Dr. Vidhu Prakash Kayastha, Kathmandu.
Nepal’s electoral system has been a subject of much debate and reform, particularly after the promulgation of the new Constitution in 2015. The inclusion of proportional representation (PR) in the election process was hailed as a major step forward in ensuring political inclusivity, representation of marginalized groups, and a more equitable distribution of political power. However, the imposition of a threshold in the proportional representation system has raised concerns, as many believe it undermines the very spirit of the Constitution and the principles of fair and inclusive representation. The ruling parties’ attempt to raise the threshold from 3% to 5% is a matter of serious concern, as it threatens to undermine the constitutional spirit of proportional representation.
The Concept of Proportional Representation in Nepal
Proportional representation is a system where political parties are allocated seats in proportion to the number of votes they receive in an election. This system was introduced in Nepal to ensure that smaller political parties, which might not have widespread support across the country but represent specific regional or ideological interests, are not excluded from the political process. The goal was to create a more pluralistic democracy, where various voices, including those of marginalized communities, are heard and represented in the national legislature.
The spirit behind the proportional representation system is clear: inclusivity and fairness. Smaller parties, which play a crucial role in broadening the political discourse and offering alternative viewpoints, are expected to have a fair opportunity to gain representation. Furthermore, this system was designed to empower groups that have traditionally been excluded, including women, ethnic minorities, indigenous groups, and marginalized communities.
The Threshold Controversy
One of the major challenges to the proportional representation system in Nepal is the imposition of a minimum threshold for parties to gain seats in the legislature. Under the current system, political parties must secure at least 3% of the national vote to qualify for PR seats. This threshold has been a point of contention among political analysts, activists, and smaller parties, who argue that it directly contradicts the constitutional spirit of proportional representation.
The core argument against the threshold is that it disproportionately disadvantages smaller parties and independent candidates, who may represent specific communities or regions but lack the widespread national support required to meet the 3% threshold. This not only diminishes the diversity of representation but also risks the marginalization of regional and minority interests, which the proportional system was supposed to protect.
Undermining Inclusivity and Fairness
The 3% threshold, critics argue, dilutes the essence of proportional representation. Smaller parties, especially those representing ethnic or indigenous groups, regional aspirations, or specific ideological perspectives, may not have a large enough national base to pass this barrier. However, they may still play a crucial role in representing the voices of underrepresented communities.
For instance, parties from certain remote areas, indigenous communities, or the LGBTQ+ community might struggle to meet the threshold despite having significant support in their constituencies. By denying them PR seats based on this arbitrary percentage, the threshold effectively narrows the spectrum of political representation and reduces the diversity of views in the legislature. This undermines the Constitution’s guarantee of proportional representation and equal participation for all citizens, regardless of their geographical location or political ideology.
Legal and Constitutional Implications
The Constitution of Nepal guarantees the right to proportional representation and emphasizes the importance of inclusivity in the political system. Article 84 of the Constitution, which lays the foundation for the electoral system, advocates for a structure that reflects the diversity and pluralism of Nepalese society. The introduction of a threshold that disproportionately favors larger parties seems to be at odds with this constitutional provision, as it restricts the ability of smaller, yet significant, political groups from having a voice in the legislative process.
In 2021, the Nepal Supreme Court issued a ruling that underscored the importance of proportionality in the electoral system. The court’s decision emphasized that electoral reforms should focus on promoting inclusivity and fairness, and that the electoral system must align with democratic principles. While the court did not directly challenge the 3% threshold, its decision highlighted the need for the system to provide adequate representation to all groups, not just those with widespread national support.
Possible Solutions
To address the concerns regarding the threshold and its impact on the proportional representation system, several alternatives can be considered:
Lowering or Removing the Threshold: One potential solution would be to lower the threshold or eliminate it altogether. This would allow smaller parties and independent candidates to secure representation in the legislature based on the proportion of votes they receive, thus ensuring a more inclusive political environment.
Regional Representation: Another option could be to introduce a more nuanced regional threshold. This would allow smaller parties representing specific regions or communities to gain representation in the legislature, even if they do not achieve the 3% threshold at the national level.
Weighted Representation: Alternatively, a weighted approach could be adopted where the significance of smaller parties’ votes is recognized through additional mechanisms, such as compensatory seats for underrepresented groups.
Reviewing the Electoral Law: A more thorough review of the electoral laws, focusing on balancing the interests of larger and smaller parties, could help ensure that the constitutional intent of proportional representation is upheld without diminishing the voice of smaller groups.
Conclusion
The imposition of a threshold in Nepal’s proportional representation system is a matter of ongoing debate. While it is designed to ensure political stability and prevent fragmentation in the legislature, it also threatens to undermine the inclusivity and fairness that the proportional representation system was supposed to guarantee. By raising barriers for smaller parties and independent candidates, the threshold diminishes the diversity of political representation and undermines the constitutional spirit of proportionality.
For Nepal’s democracy to truly reflect its pluralistic society, electoral reforms must focus on enhancing inclusivity and ensuring that all voices, regardless of size or reach, have a fair opportunity to be heard in the political arena. It is essential that any reforms to the electoral system prioritize the constitutional promise of fair, inclusive, and proportional representation.
