Submit your Article

The Election Commission (EC) has announced the final results of the November 20 elections. With this, the race for the new prime minister is expected to gather momentum. Preliminary talks among parties on possible power-sharing modalities have already begun. The top leaders of the current five-party coalition have come up with a public statement pledging to keep their collaboration intact. The core of the power-sharing deal obviously is the post of prime minister. Within the coalition, there are two contenders—Sher Bahadur Deuba and Pushpa Kamal Dahal.  In his meetings with the Nepali Congress (NC) leaders, Dahal has been claiming his stake to the post of prime minister. But his bargaining power has certainly reduced, given the poor electoral performance of his party. Dahal’s CPN (Maoist Center) has won just 32 seats out of 275-member House of Representatives (HoR). Before the elections, he had expected to emerge as a decisive power with at least 50 seats  that could make or break a government. But the election results show otherwise. Desperate, Dahal is now attempting to consolidate his strength in parliament by trying to convince the CPN (Unified Socialist), Janamat Party, Janata Samajbadi Party, Nagarik Unmukti Party, and other fringe parties. He needs to corral support of other parties so that he could bargain for the premier’s post with the NC.  Speaking at a public function on December 12 in Kathmandu, Dahal said his party still holds the key. “I can get the support of 60 lawmakers in the House because parties such as Unified Socialist, Janata Samajbadi and other fringe parties would support our party,” he said.  On the face of it, Madhav Kumar Nepal of the Unified Socialist, Upendra Yadav’s Janata Samajbadi and leaders of some other fringe parties are likely to back Dahal’s premiership bid. Reports are that Dahal has agreed to fulfill the demands of these parties. There are even talks about possible merger of some of these parties with the Maoists. But even with the backing from the fringe parties, Dahal would still need the nod from either the NC or the CPN-UML to lead the next government. NC leader Deuba has maintained silence regarding Dahal’s prime ministerial ambition so far.  While Dahal expects Deuba to hand over the leadership reins of the next government as per their gentleman’s agreement reached before the elections, the latter wants to become the prime minister for the sixth time.  The NC leaders are of the view that the party should hand over the government leadership to Dahal after 2.5 years. NC Central Working Committee member Nain Singh Mahar says there could be an agreement with the Maoists on leading the government on a rotational basis. Meanwhile, Deuba also faces pressure within his own party to step down and make way for the new generation leaders. The external influence, mainly of India and the US, also equally matters in the government formation process. Indian Ambassador to Nepal Naveen Srivastava has already intensified talks with major political parties on the government formation process. During his visit to India in July this year, Dahal had reportedly told Indian leaders and officials that the five-party coalition would remain intact.  China has not spoken anything about the government formation process, though it is clear that it prefers Dahal to lead the new government.  If the current coalition fails to strike a deal on power sharing, there is a high chance Dahal may try to convince the UML. Although Dahal and UML leader KP Sharma Oli do not see eye to eye since the bitter break-up of the erstwhile Communist Party of Nepal (CPN), the leaders of the two parties are currently in talks about forming a left alliance.  On December 14, Maoist General Secretary Dev Gurung called on Oli at the latter's Balkot residence to discuss a power-sharing deal between the two parties. Similarly, UML politburo leader Mahesh Basnet, Oli’s confidant, had met Dahal last week.  A UML leader tells ApEx that second-rung leaders of the UML and the Maoist are trying to establish rapprochement between Oli and Dahal.  “The two leaders are ready to forget their enmity and work together,” says the leader. “We are trying to set up a meeting between them.” But due to Maoist Center’s reduced size in parliament, the UML may not agree to offer premiership to Dahal. The party could, however, agree on a rotational power sharing, just like the one proposed by the NC.

Kishore Bahadur Singh, who served as a member-secretary of the Nepal Sports Council (NSC) from 2002 to 2006, has died. He was 73. According to family members, his cause of death was sudden cardiac arrest. Singh was one of the few people who came from a sporting background and reached the leadership position at the NSC. His life can be broadly divided into two parts—first as a professional athlete and second as an effective bureaucrat. Singh was appointed the 14th member-secretary of the national sports governing body after the restoration of democracy in 1990. Prior to that there was a practice of assigning the job based on his political affiliation. When Singh took on the job, he was someone who actually came from a sporting background, and a decorated one at that. Between 1972 and 1977, he was the reigning national badminton champion. He also represented Nepal at the 1970 Asian Games held in Thailand. Singh was part of the golden age of Nepali badminton. Singh was also exceptionally good outside the badminton court.  As a member-secretary of NSC, he made a reputation for being an effective leader. Sports journalist Himesh Ratna Bajracharya says as a member secretary of the sports council, Singh maintained a clean image. He ran his office in a transparent manner and took a series of measures to control corruption. Singh had made it a mission of his to make Nepali sporting field a corruption-free area. He also took many important steps to help the resource-strapped sporting sector of Nepal during his time at the sports council. “I am a player after all. I know how to handle pressure and challenge,” Singh used to tell his colleagues.   While he was serving as the member-secretary of NSC, Singh was also associated with Nepal Olympic Committee. But unlike his career in the sports council, his time at the committee was not so smooth. At one point his public image took a hit as a result of a bitter confrontation between the NSC and the committee. The conflict led to the uncertainty about Nepal’s participation in the 2004 South Asian Games held in Pakistan, says Bajracharya. Singh courted criticism from the sporting fraternity when he refused to accept the election results for the leadership of the committee. He would go on to feud with Rukma Shumsher Rana, former member-secretary of the NSC and the honorary president of the Olympic Committee, for a long time.

The vote counts of Nov 20 elections are over. The Election Commission is likely to make an official announcement of the results sometime next week.  Nepali voters this time have dealt a surprise blow to the major political parties, particularly those championing communist ideology. CPN-UML, a prominent leftist party that had won 80 seats under first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system in 2017 elections, secured just 44 seats this time. The party also dropped its seat numbers under the proportional representation category (PR), securing just 34 slots. It had won 41 PR seats in the previous elections. UML’s only consolation is that it got the largest number of PR votes.  The poll outcome was even worse for CPN (Maoist Center). The party that had won 36 FPTP seats in 2017 elections could not even eke out half the number this time. Its strength also took a hit under the PR vote count.   After the 2017 elections, the UML and Maoist together had 174 seats in the 275-member House of Representative. The combined seats won by all the communist parties, including the CPN (Unified Socialist) and Rastriya Janamorcha, cannot even form a simple majority this time. Political analyst Puranjan Acharya says big communist parties like the UML and Maoist Center lost a substantial number of votes this time due to party splits and intra-party betrayal.  “Other reasons behind their downward spiral is their failure to deliver when they were in power after the 2017 polls.”  Although Nepali Congress fared better to become the largest party, there is no reason to rejoice. It won 57 FPTP seats (34 more than last time) but dropped the PR numbers winning only 32 seats against 40 in 2017.   Analyst Chandra Dev Bhatta says the rise of the middle-class is also a major reason behind the fall of communist parties in Nepal.  “When they were in power, they failed to convert their high-sounding rhetoric into a reality,” he says. “The decline of communist forces is a global phenomenon. The power of the red flag is fading.”   The only parties to get the last laugh were the newly formed Rastriya Swatantra Party and the Hindu right-wing Rastriya Prajatantra Party. They drew votes from all three major parties—NC, UML and Maoists. They will have a critical role in the government formation process.

Will Gagan Kumar Thapa become the prime ministerial candidate from his party? Ask this  to young cadre of the Nepali Congress and they will say he can and should become the next prime minister. But if you ask senior Congress leaders, they will tell you that Thapa’s time has not come to become the party’s candidate for prime minister. If there is a contest between the NC president Sher Bahadur Deuba, and Thapa for Parliamentary Party (PP) leader, the prerequisite to becoming prime minister candidate, the former could sweep the election, given his strong command in the party structure. He is struggling to secure the support of senior leaders like Shekhar Koirala and Ram Chandra Poudel. He has been projecting himself as the party’s prime ministerial candidate. In the run-up to the Nov 20 general elections, he told voters that he was going to vie for PP leadership. The card worked well with the voters and Thapa was elected from Kathmandu-4. A former student leader, Thapa has risen through the party ranks in an incredible fashion. He was elected as the general secretary of NC in 2021 and has previously served as a health minister. He is among the few well-read and eloquent politicians in the country. He emboldened his position as the potential national leader of the NC when he faced off against the then-prime minister KP Sharma Oli of CPN-UML in parliament. No wonder many young Congress members see him as a visionary leader who could revive the party that is suffering from chronic factional politics.  But realistically, he has little chance of winning the PP leadership race, because the majority of NC lawmakers belong to the Deuba camp. Some observers say Thapa is well aware that he has no chance of winning the election for PP leadership and that he is only outlining his intent for the future of the NC by announcing his candidacy. Thapa is essentially priming himself to become the party’s leader and prime minister after five years. Right now, he lacks the support of senior leaders to pose a serious challenge to Deuba. Moreover, government formation is not just an intra-party affair. As the elections have produced a hung parliament, the next government will be a coalition one. There should be agreement among coalition partners on the prime ministerial candidate. Within the NC, Thapa, despite being a popular leader, has not formed any faction, which is a must if he were to become a serious contender for the post of party president or prime minister. In the 13th general convention of the party, Thapa joined Krishna Prasad Sitaula’s camp. He won the election for the party’s general secretary in the 14th general convention in 2021 by joining the Shekhar Koirala faction. It seems that Thapa is now trying to form his own faction rather than staying in the Koirala camp. In the party’s Central Working Committee (CWC) and PP, a large number of leaders are above 55 years old. Though many of them respect him and cannot deny his rise, they do not support him as a PP leader. Many of his seniors do not feel comfortable on his rise.  Leaders who are of Thapa’s age, meanwhile, see him as their competitor. That is why many youth leaders support Deuba to solidify their own positions inside the party. He is popular and among the party cadres, but when it comes to CWC or PP, he has only a few supporters. NC’s leadership structure is dominated by old faces, and for a young leader like Thapa to get to the top is tough right now. Nevertheless, Thapa’s rise in the party cannot be ignored. While scores of senior NC leaders are struggling to get elected as party CWC members and parliamentarians, this is the fourth time that Thapa has become the lawmaker since he was first elected in the 2008 Constituent Assembly polls. So far, Bishwa Prakash Sharma, party general secretary, is the only senior leader who has publicly spoken in his favor of Thapa’s bid to become the prime minister candidate. Sharma said on December 30 that he would try to forge a consensus within the party to make Thapa the party’s prime minister candidate. He said: “My role will be to convince Sher Bahadur Deuba and Ram Chandra Poudel to accept Thapa as a prime minister.” Thapa and Sharma are trying to create their own faction in the NC after the party’s 14th general convention held in 2021. Besides, Thapa is not the only NC leader who is in the race to become prime minister. Senior leader Ram Chandra Poudel has also staked his claim to the post and has already reached out to CPN (Unified Socialist) leader Madhav Kumar Nepal to seek his support. Poudel, who was considered Deuba’s main rival in the party, remained passive ahead of the party’s 14th general convention. This led to the emergence of Shekhar Koirala as Deuba’s chief rival in the party’s presidential race. Thapa, who was elected the party’s general secretary through the same convention, had supported Koirala’s presidential bid. Whether Koirala will support Thapa’s prime ministerial aspiration remains uncertain for now. Koirala told media on Dec 1 that he will make his position clear only after consultation with the party president.  Deuba too has not spoken about his intent to become prime minister, but his core supporters believe he will and he should take on the job. Leaders in the Deuba camp including Purna Bahadur Khadka, Prakash Sharan Mahat, Purna Bahadur Khadka and Gyanendra Bahadur Karki have been saying in public that the party president will lead the coalition government. Though it is a very challenging job for Thapa, his candidacy has created a ripple inside and outside the party.

Nepal Congress(NC) has emerged as the largest party from the Nov 20 elections. CPN-UML, CPN (Maoist Center) and Rastriya Swatantra Party(RSP) are set to emerge as the second, third and fourth largest parties respectively. Likewise, pro-royalast Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) has revived its position in the national parliament under the leadership of Rajendra Lingden. Janata Samajbadi Party and Loktantrik Samajbadi Party, two big Madhes-based parties, didn’t fare well. The Election Commission(EC) has not made the official announcement of the result but an intra- and inter-party race for the new prime minister has already  begun. Inside NC, senior leader Ram Chandra Poudel and youth leader Gagan Kumar Thapa have staked their claim to the post. While incumbent Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba has not responded regarding their intention, his core supporters do not think there is a leader who could replace him inside the party. Once the EC makes election results out, the party will hold the election of its parliamentary party leader. The winner will be eligible to become the party’s prime ministerial candidate. The concrete discussion on  power-sharing deals with other coalition partners begins only after the NC settles its intra-party issues, as youth leaders like Thapa are saying that they are not in favor of continuing the coalition just for the sake of it. Instead, they are calling for a new power-sharing deal guided by common policy. Unlike in the NC, UML Chairman KP Sharma Oli and Maoist Center Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal do not have any challenges from within. Still, the government formation process is likely to become a sticky affair, following the fragmented vote in the elections. Weakened positions of major parties and the emergence of the new party like the RSP mean there is no telling how the new government composition will be. While top leaders of the major current coalition have already started parleys to explore the possibility of continuation of the present coalition, the UML wants to break it. Some UML leaders are openly proposing the NC to seriously consider the possibility of a NC-UML coalition government. It is hard to predict how the power-sharing deal pans out. Parties may not be able to forge a consensus on government leadership even after the EC announces the final election results. On Nov 24, UML Chairman KP Sharma Oli rightly pointed out that formation of a new government is going to be difficult, and even more so ensuring its sustainability. The NC will naturally stake its claim to the leadership of the next government. This, even though Deuba and Dahal had reportedly reached an understanding that the latter will get to become the next prime minister. It was part of the deal brokered by the two leaders to forge an electoral alliance to defeat the UML. But, with the Maoists failing to win enough seats in parliament, Deuba may not honor that pact. The NC-led five-party electoral alliance will require at least 138 seats to form a government. But due to poor performance of its members, the current coalition will struggle to string together a majority. They will most likely have to reach out to the parties like the RSP, RPP, fringe Madhes-based parties and independent candidates. And while the strength of the Maoist party may have reduced, it could still become the kingmaker. Without Maoists’ support, there won’t be a majority—neither for Deuba, nor for Oli. While Deuba may agree to hand over the government leadership to Dahal to prevent the UML from coming to power, it will be a very difficult task to say the least. UML won  parliamentary seats nearly on par with the NC. The party’s chair, Oli, is the undisputed  candidate for PM.  There are murmurs that there is a chance of the UML and the Maoists coming together to form a government.   Oli has already called Dahal offering a  power-sharing agreement, even though the two leaders have not been seeing eye- to-eye after the bitter breakup of the erstwhile Communist Party of Nepal (CPN) in 2021, which was formed as a result of the merger between UML and Maoists in 2018.  But with both Oli and Dahal claimants to the post of prime minister from their respective parties and their already fractious relationship, it is hard to imagine if and how they will come together to form a government. The NC-UML coalition government cannot be ruled out either. Oli had hinted about its possibility before the elections as well. And if the two parties were to come together, the fringe parties could lose their bargaining power. It could also bring some semblance of government stability. However, the last time the NC and UML entered a coalition, it had ended disastrously. After the 2013 second Constituent Assembly polls, the two parties had come together to form a government under a gentleman’s understanding that the NC would hand over the government reins to the UML after the promulgation of constitution. But the NC reneged on the promise and the UML went on to ally with the Maoists. Even if the NC and UML were to join hands to form a new government, the billion-dollar question remains: who gets to become the prime minister? No matter how far-fetched it may seem, there is a chance that Deuba and Oli could agree to lead the government on a rotational basis, considering that the emergence of new parties is a common threat to them. And if all fails, formation of a minority government also cannot be fully ruled out. In this case, the new government will have to take a vote of confidence within a month.  None of the above-mentioned alternatives can be ruled out, because coalitions are never formed on the basis of ideology. Similarly, the power-sharing deal in the seven provinces will also influence the makeup of the government at the center. The issue of which party gets president and speaker is likely to become equally prickly in the overall power-sharing process. At the same time, the role and influence of external power is another factor that could determine the power-sharing deal. The fragmented parliament provides spaces to external powers to influence the formation process. Make no mistake, New Delhi, Beijing and Washington have already started exerting their influence in the government formation process.

The government formation process is likely to become a sticky affair following the fragmented vote in the Nov 20 parliamentary elections. Weakened position of major parties — Nepali Congress, CPN-UML, and CPN (Maoist Center) — and the emergence of the new party like Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) mean there is no telling how the new government composition will be. Had the Maoists won around 40-50 seats, its leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal was expected to lead the new government as a continuation of the current five-party coalition. But as the vote counting in 165 constituencies under the first-past-the-post (FPTP) reaches final stage it appears that Dahal’s party will only win around 30 seats in federal parliament. The Congress and UML could secure in between 80-90 each. Similarly, the RSP could get around 20 seats and the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) around 10. It means the new parliament will be more fragmented than it was in 2017. In this context, it is hard to predict how power-sharing deal pans out. The coming period of government formation will likely to prove long and hard. Parties may not be able to forge a consensus on government leadership even after the Election Commission announces the final election results, possibly in another two weeks’ time. On Nov 24, UML Chairman KP Sharma Oli rightly pointed out that formation of a new government is going to be difficult, and even more so ensuring its sustainability. The NC will naturally stake its claim to the leadership of the next government. This, even though NC’s Deuba and Maoists’ Dahal had reportedly reached an understanding that the latter will get to become the next prime minister. It was part of the deal brokered by the two leaders to forge an electoral alliance to defeat the UML. With the Maoists failing to win enough seats in parliament, Deuba may not honor that pact. Many NC leaders do not want the Maoists to lead the government anyway. The NC-led five-party electoral alliance will require at least 138 seats to form government. But due to poor performance of its members, the current coalition will struggle to string together a majority. The will most likely have to reach out to the parties like the RSP, RPP and fringe Madhes-based parties. And while the strength of the Maoist party may have reduced, it could still become the kingmaker. Without Maoists’ support, there won’t be a majority—neither for Deuba, nor for Oli. While Deuba may agree to hand over the government leadership to Dahal to prevent the UML from coming to power, it will be a very difficult task to say the least. The NC is a divided house when it comes to the prime ministerial candidates. Party leaders like Gagan Kumar Thapa and Ram Chandra Poudel have been angling for the post of prime minister. Deuba’s rival Shekhar Koirala has not spoken anything about it. There is also a strong voice inside the NC that the party should lead the government. UML which has won election at par with NC is a natural claimant to lead the next government. Oli has already called Dahal for a possible power-sharing agreement, even though the two leaders have not been seeing eye- to-eye after the bitter breakup of the erstwhile Communist Party of Nepal (CPN) in 2021, which was formed as a result of the merger between UML and Maoists in 2018. With both Oli and Dahal claimants to the post of prime minister and their already fractious relationship, it is hard to imagine if and how they will come together to form a government. The NC-UML coalition government cannot be ruled out either. Oli had hinted about its possibility before the elections as well. And if the two parties were to come together, fringe parties could lose their bargaining power. It could also bring some semblance of government stability. However, the last time the NC and UML entered a coalition, it had ended disastrously. After the 2013 second Constituent Assembly polls, the two parties had come together to form a government under a gentleman’s understanding that the NC would hand over the government leadership to the UML after the promulgation of constitution. But the NC reneged on the promise and the UML went on to ally with the Maoists. But even if the NC and UML were to join hands to form a new government, the billion-dollar question remains: who gets to become the prime minister? No matter how fart-fetched it may seem, there is a chance that Deuba and Oli could agree to lead the government on a rotational basis, considering that the emergence of new parties is a common threat to them. And if all fails, formation of a minority government also cannot be fully ruled out. In this case, the new government will have to take a vote of confidence within a month. None of the above-mentioned alternatives can be ruled out, because coalitions are never formed on the basis of ideology. The result of provincial assembly will also shape the possible power-sharing in the center. At the same time, the role and influence of external power is another factor that could determine the power-sharing deal. The fragmented parliament provides spaces to external powers to influence the formation process. The race for the next prime minister has begun.

If parties do not prolong the power-sharing deal, Nepal will get a new government within a month. But the next dispensation is unlikely to enjoy a full five-year term as the election is all set to produce a hung parliament.   Whosoever becomes the new prime minister faces multiple challenges, both at domestic and external fronts. The foremost challenge will be getting the faltering economy on track. Soaring interest rates, inflation, dwindling foreign exchange reserves, and effects of import ban have battered the economy. Fear of economic recession looms large.  The first order of business for the new prime minister should be appointing a finance minister who can rescue the economy. He must get someone who is actually qualified for the job, not a party loyalist.  The next step would be to revive people’s trust in key state institutions, such as parliament, judiciary, and constitutional bodies. The basic democratic tenet of check-and-balance has been shaken by overt politicization of state organs.  The judiciary is without a full-fledged chief justice, as an impeachment motion is pending against the disgraced high office-holder, Cholendra SJB Rana. The damning exposé on Rana’s political ambition whilst leading the Supreme Court has eroded public trust in the judiciary.  Rebuilding the court’s image and its legitimacy will take hard work and a long time.    The new prime minister will also have to find a way to work with a hung parliament.  Over the last five years, the parliament was not allowed to function independently. The leadership of the legislative body acted on the whims of political parties, and as a result, failed to endorse important bills. The neutral role of the speaker came into question in many instances. Like in the past, the new parliament should not act as a rubber stamp of certain political parties. Again, it will be incumbent on the executive to ensure this. All laws should be formulated by an elected legislative body, not through ordinances. Preventing corruption is another challenge for the new prime minister. To do so, the incoming government and its partners should allow the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority to function independently.  The commission has consistently failed to deal with large-scale corruption cases, largely due to political pressure. It will be the job of the next government to allow the anti-graft body to do its work without any hindrances. On the external front, there are many challenges the new prime minister and his government must deal with to navigate the increasingly rough waters of geopolitics. In their election manifestos, all major political parties have pledged to adopt a balanced relationship with India, China, and the US. This is easier said than done. The new prime minister should be able to tell these major powers that there is a redline that they should not cross while dealing with Nepal. But before taking on the aforementioned tasks, the new prime minister should keep his party in order. Since 1990, all prime ministers have faced more hostility from within the party than the opposition party. A recent example was the downfall of the KP Sharma Oli-led government due to intra-party disputes.  Managing the conflicting interests of coalition partners is key to yielding results for the next prime minister. It will take genuine effort—all the more so because the people’s belief in political parties and the system is declining.  This time there is an additional challenge too—accommodating the voices and interests of new political forces—Rastriya Swatantra Party, some independent candidates and Janamat party-led by CK Raut. Many of them want to make changes to the 2015 constitution, which could divide the House.   The new prime minister has a rocky road ahead. 

Nepal’s Nov 20 parliamentary and provincial assembly elections registered a voter turnout of 61 percent, according to the Election Commission (EC). Speaking at a press conference, Chief Election Commissioner Dinesh Thapaliya said voter turnout fell below expectations. The highest turnout (78 percent) was recorded in the second Constituent Assembly (CA) elections in 2013, while the lowest was in the parliamentary elections of 1993 (61 percent) and the first CA election in 2008 (61percent), respectively. In the 2017 parliamentary and provincial assembly elections, the turnout of voters was decent at 68.67 percent. In the local-level elections held in May this year, voter turnout was 66.86 percent. Voter turnout this time, however, was much lower, even though there were no major security threats to the elections. In 2017, people were excited to vote because they had hoped the elections would lead the country toward political stability and prosperity. But that was not to be. Some analysts say the post-2017 political scene was the very reason why many voters did not cast their ballots this time. Chandra Dev Bhatta, a political analyst, says lower turnout was expected right from the very beginning when major political parties country began allocating tickets. The parties distributed election tickets to their near and dear ones, as they had been doing since the 1990s. Many candidates were familiar faces who even after winning the elections had delivered little, if nothing, to their constituencies over the last three decades. “The voters, irrespective of their age and political persuasion, this time wanted to see new candidates who could bring about real change,” says Bhatta. “But that didn’t happen when the parties announced their candidates.” Another reason for low voter turnout, says Bhatta, was the fact that the election this time was not conducted on any specific agendas, ones connected to the livelihood of the people. “Major parties tried to trump up the rumor that if they didn’t win the election this time, the country’s democracy, sovereignty, and the constitution itself would be endangered,” says Bhatta. “Of course, the discerning voters didn’t buy this bluff.” In fact, declining voter turnout is a global trend. According to a study carried out by IDEA International in 2016, despite the growth in the global voter population and the number of countries that hold elections, the global average voter turnout has decreased significantly since the early 1990s. Global voter turnout, says the report, was fairly stable between the 1940s and the 1980s, falling only slightly from 78 percent to 76 percent over the entire period. “It then fell sharply in the 1990s to 70 percent and continued its decline to reach 66 percent in the period of 2011–15.” This is most definitely not because the voters are not interested in politics. Analysts say it is perhaps because voters no longer identify with their politicians. Voter turnout in the previous elections 1991: 65.15 percent 1993: 61.86 percent 1999: 65.79 percent 2008: 61.7 percent (FPTP) and 63.3 percent (PR) 2013: 78.74 percent (FPTP), 79.82 percent (PR) 2017: 68.67 percent 2022: 61 percent