Small political parties have an important role in a diverse soci­ety like Nepal. Riding on a global trend, the more recognized bigger parties are becoming populist. In this process, they often abandon minority groups and important agendas that they are reluctant to adopt fearing a populist backlash. In Nepal’s case, the smaller parties in the past have carried the agendas of individual ethnic groups, religions and regions. Says General Secretary of CPN (ML) CP Mainali, which cur­rently does not have any seat in the federal lower house: “Fringe parties have a big role in ensuring an inclu­sive political system.”

 

But these smaller political outfits in Nepal are facing an existential threat following a 2017 law that made it mandatory for political parties to secure at least one directly-elected seat and at least three percent of pro­portional representation votes for them to be recognized as a national party. This provision drastically cut down the number of parties repre­sented in the parliament.

 

After the first (2008) and the sec­ond (2013) Constituent Assembly elections, there were 25 and 30 parties represented in the national assembly, respectively. But following the 2017 federal election, after the new electoral law came into effect, only nine political parties and one independent lawmaker won seats under the FPTP category, and just five parties were elected under the PR category. As of now there are just four recognized national parties. The lawmakers elected from other parties are represented in the parlia­ment as individual candidates.

 

But the big political parties decid­ed on a threshold for a reason. “Earlier, the presence of so many parties in the parliament made deci­sion-making hard,” says Radheshy­am Adhikari, a member of the fed­eral upper house representing the Nepali Congress. Governments were constantly made and unmade as smaller parties frequently switched sides.

 

One good thing is that after the new law came into effect extrem­ist voices like those of anti-federal Rastriya Janamorcha and pro-mon­archy RPP have been weakened. But many marginalized communities may argue their voices are no longer heard in the new majoritarian set-up. Perhaps there is a case for slightly lowering the 3 percent threshold, say to 2 or 2.5 percent. It will be dangerous to let two or three polit­ical parties monopolize the hold on power and set the nation’s agenda and direction.  

 

 Life on the fringes

 

 Although the presence of a large number of small parties can contribute to political instability, it also ensures a steady supply of diverse ideas and provides voters with more political choices 

 

 Although only two parties, the Nepal Communist Party (NCP) and the Nepali Congress (NC), currently dominate national pol­itics, there is a recent history of fringe parties wielding considerable political influence. Only five parties—the CPN-UML, the NC, the Maoist Center, the Ras­triya Janata Party, Nepal (RJPN), and the Federal Socialist Forum, Nepal (FSFN)—could secure the ‘national’ status based on the seats they won in the 2017 elections. (The number of national parties is now four, fol­lowing the merger last year between the UML and the Maoist Center to give birth to the NCP.) Lawmakers from other parties are represented in the parliament as independent candidates. In the upper house called the National Assembly (NA), only the four national parties are represented.

 

In the first Constituent Assembly (CA) election in 2008, 74 political parties were registered with the Election Commission (EC). Only 54 of them participated in the polls, and nine parties and one indepen­dent member won seats under the first-past-the-post (FPTP) cat­egory. But altogether 25 political parties were represented under the proportional representation (PR) category.

 

The number of political parties taking part in the second CA elec­tion in 2013 increased significantly. But of the 122 political parties that fielded candidates under the FPTP category, only 11 won seats. How­ever, of the 122 political parties, as many as 30 were elected to the CA under the proportional represen­tation (PR) category. After the first and second CA elections, it was hard for the Parliament Secretariat to arrange for parliamentary party offices due to the high numbers of elected political parties.

 

In the first and second CA elec­tions, several fringe parties were formed on ethnic lines, but they failed to impress the voters in the last elections. “Earlier, the presence of so many parties in the parlia­ment made decision-making harder because of protracted bargain­ing and renegotiation,” says Rad­heshyam Adhikari, an NA member representing the Congress.

 

In the 2017 federal election, nine political parties and one indepen­dent lawmaker won seats under the FPTP category, but only five parties were elected under the PR category. Naya Shakti Nepal Party, Nepal Majdoor Kishan Party, Ras­triya Janamorcha and Rastriya Pra­jatantra Party each won one seat under the FPTP category but failed to get the new 3 percent of the total vote threshold required to secure national status.

 

The big squeeze

The number of political parties plummeted after a 2017 law had made it mandatory for parties to get both three percent of the total votes under the PR category as well as at least one seat under the FPTP cate­gory to be recognized as a national party. After the imposition of the 3 percent threshold, some small par­ties merged into bigger ones.

 

According to the latest EC data, altogether 113 political parties are registered as per constitutional pro­visions. But not all of them contest elections. In 2017, 95 political par­ties had submitted an application to the EC for participation in the fed­eral and provincial elections. The EC listed 91 of them as eligible and gave them election symbols. But only 55 political parties fielded candidates under the FPTP category. As many as 88 political parties had submit­ted an application to the EC for the PR category, but only 49 ended up sending their lists of candidates.

 

The absence of smaller parties in the parliament and in national pol­itics has both pros and cons. Over the last three decades, fringe parties were one of the reasons behind government instability. Big parties sought their support, either to form or topple the government. General Secretary of CPN (ML) CP Mainali says big parties as well as the media and civil society blamed fringe par­ties for the country’s political insta­bility, which created an opinion in favor of limiting the number of political parties by imposing a cer­tain threshold.

 

“But fringe parties have a big role in ensuring an inclusive political system,” Mainali told APEX. “Small parties like ours have a vastly differ­ent political ideology than the big parties,” he added.

 

In the past, instead of sticking to a permanent alliance, many fringe parties displayed a tendency to sup­port any party or leader if it served their immediate purpose. There are several instances of fringe parties playing a decisive role in the for­mation or toppling of governments. So electoral laws were amended to discourage smaller parties. “Now we have realized our mistake and are working tirelessly to repair our image and revive the party. We face many issues as the current govern­ment with a two-thirds majority has failed to deliver,” says Mainali.

 

Diversity v chaos

There indeed are concerns that restrictions on political parties adversely affect diversity and plu­ralism. In a democracy, political parties play a vital role in making the government accountable and transparent. In several cases, major political parties have a rigid ideo­logical viewpoint and dread experi­menting. It is smaller parties, whose chances of winning elections and ascending to power are slim, that can take the risk of introducing new and out-of-the box ideas. “In a plu­ral society like Nepal’s, fringe par­ties could play a vital role in giving voice to diverse ideas and opinions,” argues Puranjan Acharya, a political analyst.

 

But Adhikari, who had a hand in introducing the 3 percent thresh­old, does not subscribe to this view. “In other countries, fringe parties have a firm ideological position, with which they try to secure voter support. The situation is different in Nepal, where fringe parties fre­quently trade ideology for political gain,” he says. He cites the example of the Rastriya Prajantra Party led by Kamal Thapa, which he thinks has pursued power at the expense of a steady focus on its Hindu agenda.

 

Yet there is no denying that the voices of only a few parties are dom­inant in the parliament. In the first and second CA, Chitra Bahadur KC of the Rastriya Janamorcha vehe­mently opposed the idea of federal­ism and his presence was striking. But now that his party is no longer represented in the parliament, his ideas are rarely heard in the media and in public spaces, although he remains steadfast in his belief that a federal system is unsuited to Nepal.

 

“There have been systematic attempts by the big parties to min­imize the role of smaller parties in the parliament. With a party status in the parliament, it would have been easier to convey our mes­sage to the people,” KC told APEX. “Smaller parties play a vital role in ensuring political inclusion, but there have been attempts to impose a two-party system in the country. However, we will continue to con­vince people that federalism is not suitable for Nepal,” he said.

 

Many political commentators say smaller parties are even more important in the federal step-up. Although they are unlikely to win seats in the federal parliament, they can win elections at the provincial and local levels, where they can highlight grassroots issues neglected by the big national parties.

 

The existence of small parties also gives voters more political choices. In the last elections, for example, many urban residents voted for the Bibeksheel Sajha Party, which inspired voters with its agenda of ‘alternative politics’. Although it didn’t win a single seat in the federal parliament, it secured two in the Province 3 legislature.