Yet another change in government raises questions on whether an overhaul of Nepal’s political and electoral system is in order
19-07-2024
Since multiparty democracy was introduced in Nepal in 1990, the country has had 32 governments. It has had 13 different governments in the brief time since it became a federal republic in 2008, and the new coalition government that assumed office on 15 July with K.P. Sharma Oli once again back as the Prime Minister was the 14th. The outgoing Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal lost a vote of confidence in parliament on 12 July after Oli’s Communist Unified Marxist Leninist (UML), the largest party in Dahal’s governing coalition, withdrew its support, forcing him to step down from office after 19 months in power. The new coalition that Oli has forged with Sher Bahadur Deuba of the Nepali Congress has entered into a power-sharing agreement with the intention of amending the constitution to change the electoral system. This, they believe, would bring much needed stability to the country. Experts have argued that the prolonged absence of political stability has impacted all facets of life in Nepal, and continuing with the current state of affairs had become untenable for Nepali polity and society alike.
The fickle brand of politics that Nepal has come to be identified with was evident in how and why the present change in government came about. Dahal, also known as Prachanda, or the “fierce one”, led a violent Maoist communist insurgency from 1996 to 2006. The Maoists gave up their armed revolt, joined a United Nations (UN)-assisted peace process in 2006, and entered mainstream politics. Dahal’s party secured the most parliamentary seats in 2008 and he became prime minister, but quit a year later over differences with the president. The just concluded one was his third time as the prime minister of the Himalayan nation since the Maoists joined mainstream politics in 2006.
Dahal had been leading a shaky governing coalition since becoming Prime Minister in December 2022 following an inconclusive election where his party finished third. But he formed a new alliance and became its leader. However, he had to seek a vote of confidence in parliament five times since he became leader because of disagreements within his coalition partners. Dahal had to move a confidence motion in parliament after his main ally in government, the UML, decided to pull their support last week. He needed at least 138 votes in his favour in the 275-member house to retain power. A total of 63 of the 258 lawmakers present in the chambers voted for him, 194 voted against, and one abstained.
Dahal had no major problems or differences with the UML that led to the split. However, as per media reports, Oli was given an offer by the Nepali Congress that he could lead the government if they formed a new alliance. The Nepali Congress, ousted from the coalition by Dahal in March, was strongly motivated to avenge its “betrayal”. Oli decided to take the Nepali Congress offer. UML lawmaker Yogesh Bhattarai explained later that “The new coalition was necessitated by a need for political stability”. Under the power-sharing deal, the Nepali Congress and the UML have agreed to lead the government on a rotating basis until late 2027, when this session of Parliament concludes. Oli will have to seek a vote of confidence in parliament within a month to continue in office. The two parties in the new alliance have more than half the members in parliament, giving them enough votes to pass a vote of confidence. Both parties believe that only a strong government, formed between them can resolve the multiple crises facing the country today. However, the issue of constitutional amendment would be a challenging one for them.
Writing in The Diplomat, Pratistha Rijal on 17 July noted that the current coalition, while fragile, has enough seats to undertake constitutional amendment, and potentially do away with Nepal’s mixed electoral system. She wrote, “However, this change assumes added significance as the new government reportedly plans to modify Nepal’s electoral processes through constitutional amendments – a move that will have ramifications for Nepal’s political structure, stability, and representation. The Oli-led Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML) has come into power in alliance with Sher Bahadur Deuba’s Nepali Congress (NC). With 78 and 88 members, respectively, the CPN-UML and NC together command 60 percent of Nepal’s 275-member lower house”. She elaborated on the proposed constitutional changes – “The current system is a combination of the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system, under which representatives are elected directly, and the proportional representation (PR) system, under which electorates vote for parties and parties choose their representatives. Sixty percent of Nepal’s lower house members are elected through the FPTP system while 40 percent are elected through the PR system. Nepal’s 59-member upper house is composed of 56 similarly elected leaders and three members appointed by the president. Per the Oli-Deuba alliance’s plans, lower house members will be elected solely through the FPTP system while upper house members will be elected solely through the PR system. Political observers’ readings of the alliance’s plans vary, with some contending that it will pave the way for political stability and others arguing it will undo mechanisms instituted for political inclusivity”.
Rijal continued, “Those in favor of the alliance’s plans highlight that in a mixed electoral system, it is difficult for parties to get an absolute majority, making a hung parliament ‘characteristic’ of Nepal’s lower house. They note that under the current system, ‘factions, splits, and divisions are regular occurrences within political parties,’ creating room for the ‘game of toppling and forming [coalition] governments’. Nepal’s contemporary political history is a testament to these arguments… On the other hand, the existing electoral system is designed to ensure representation – a fundamental tenet of Nepal’s constitution. Quotas have been put in place to ensure that Nepali politics – which have ‘been dominated by the upper Hindu castes from the northern hill region for centuries’ – is more inclusive of marginalized communities including women, Dalits, Madhesis, and Tharus, among others”.
Dr. Bipin Adhikari, professor of law at Kathmandu University, however, is of the view that changing Nepal’s electoral processes does not need to come at the cost of inclusivity. He argued that electing the lower house solely through the FPTP system and the upper house solely through the PR system could be a positive development, if these changes are made with provisions to “further consolidate and strengthen” marginalized communities’ representation. He also noted the need to address the existing power differential between the lower and upper houses.
The current system was adopted after a new constitution was written in 2015 and brought into force two years later. The demand of the bigger parties for a constitutional amendment to create a first-past-the-post voting system is aimed at curbing the power of small parties, which, they argue, would ensure political stability. As commentator Yubaraj Ghimire pointed out, “The decision to amend the constitution is an admission that Nepal's experiment with federalism failed. The 2015 constitution was rushed through without debate or consultation, and its weakness is now coming to the fore”.
Some analysts argue that the rise of new political parties in Nepal played a role in bringing the Nepali Congress and the UML together. There is a growing disenchantment with traditional political entities, particularly among the younger demographic, who are increasingly drawn to alternative political voices. This trend has eroded the support base of both the NC and the UML, resulting in a decrease in their overall vote shares. These analysts believe that the alliance between these two parties could be viewed as a strategic response to jointly address the challenges posed by these emerging political dynamics.
Rijal, meanwhile, observed that “The implications of the Oli-Deuba alliance, of course, go beyond just electoral processes. A sluggish economy, the continued exodus of Nepali youth, balancing Indian and Chinese interests in Nepal, citizens’ growing disillusionment with Nepali politics and politicians, and nostalgia for monarchy are among several issues that the alliance needs to address”.
The government, meanwhile, has now changed at a time when the country has been facing a string of monsoon-related disasters. The emergency response, reports point out, is being hampered by Nepal’s constant political turnover. Nepal is one of the world's poorest countries and political instability has discouraged investment and hobbled its economic development, forcing millions of young people to seek work mainly in Malaysia, South Korea and the Middle East. The instability has also sparked sporadic protests with people demanding the restoration of the monarchy saying successive governments had failed to live up to commitments to develop the country sandwiched between giants India and China.
Dhruba Adhikary, an independent analyst, was quoted as saying that “This change could be good for the country now that the two largest parties will be running the government as it could bring the much-needed political stability. However, going by our history, we just can’t be sure if they can keep up their partnership for long which could again bring further confusion and chaos”. Other analysts felt the Nepali Congress and UML, Nepal's two biggest parties, had taken a risk by pulling down Dahal's government and forming a new alliance. Geja Sharma Wagle felt that “This is risky and the last option. If this coalition fails to deliver governance and political stability, the Nepali people will interpret it as the failure of the constitution and the system”. The New York Times quoted Anurag Acharya, director of the Kathmandu-based think tank Policy Entrepreneurs Incorporated, as saying, “Frustrated by the opportunist tendency of Dahal, the two big parties have come closer, seeking stability in politics. There’s no guarantee of stability though”. Former Nepalese diplomat Lokraj Baral opined that “Nepal is yet to develop a culture for running coalition governments”.
A key reason cited for Nepal’s largest and second largest parties to unite was to ensure government stability. Both leaders acknowledge that given the multiple crises facing the country, it is their responsibility to join forces and tackle them. However, maintaining the coalition is a daunting task given the history of coalition governments, exacerbated by concerns over Oli’s track record as a team player. Speaking of Oli, Ghimire said, “He has other problems. but he is very intolerant to dissent and very humiliating to his opponents. Like all the Nepalese Prime Ministers after 2006, Oli faces many corruption charges but they have blocked any investigation and got immunity’’. As prime minister, the onus is on Oli to sustain the coalition with the Nepali Congress.
The prospect of political tension in Nepal is cause for concern for both India and China, the two big investors in the country. India has an open border that allows free movement of people and goods from Nepal. Between 3 million and 4 million Nepalese nationals study, live and work in India under a 1950 friendship treaty, according to Nepali official reports. Nepal has a total population of about 29 million. As Ghimire wrote in The Indian Express, “Nepal’s overwhelmingly large economic relationship is with India. In partnership with the Nepali Congress, Oli seems to be cognisant of this reality and its bearing on his political future. Rajan Bhattarai, foreign policy advisor to Oli, recently told PTI that India’s support and cooperation were crucial for Nepal’s development and stability”. Oli, despite his earlier leaning towards China, now seems to have realized that he needs the support of both India and China to survive. He has already reached out to New Delhi, seeking support for a stable and fruitful partnership. Unsurprisingly, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was quick to congratulate Oli, posting on 15 July on X, “Look forward to working closely to further strengthen the deep bonds of friendship between our two countries and to further expand our mutually beneficial cooperation for the progress and prosperity of our peoples”. China has not commented on the new dispensation yet.
As Pratistha Rijal concluded, “The new Oli-Deuba alliance could very well be another coalition reshuffle of ‘no real concern of significance’. On the off chance it isn’t, it could have significant implications for Nepal’s electoral processes”.
