In a democracy, holding regular periodic elections is an essential practice. Thus substantive concepts of democracy and electoral integrity, rather than existing international/national laws and standards, should guide their postponement. Periodic elections strengthen the democratic system while postponing them breaks institutional certainty, increasing the risk of a democratic breakdown.
The requirement of regular elections was famously enshrined into Article 21(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Clear-cut provisions in other internationally agreed documents, covenants, and understandings are widely used in democratic countries. Even autocrats hesitate to postpone their faux elections as they claim to be working for the people and democracy.
There are some globally recognized exceptions that can be used to postpone elections. Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that “in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the State’s Parties … may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation”.
Likewise, international electoral assistance agencies have issued guidance that any emergency provisions—like postponing polls—must be proportionate, nondiscriminatory, temporary, and limited in scope. Postponement is justified during unprecedented times such as the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic or a natural disaster that may endanger the lives of civilians.
Unfortunately, incumbents often postpone elections to hold on to power. The postponement might be for an indefinite time, for example when power is seized by a military coup, as in Myanmar. Elections are also postponed to undercut opposition parties and their followers, to buy time to change public opinion, or to create a more favorable situation for winning elections. The postponement of Venezuelan elections in 2016–2018 exemplifies this latter case.
Other reasons for postponement could be a political crisis resulting in institutional breakdown, thereby preventing scheduled elections. Or there could be a political stalemate and constitutional crisis. But indefinite postponement of elections goes beyond democratic norms and is thus unacceptable.
Nepal’s Election Commission urged the government to fix a date of local elections. The ruling alliance partners immediately invoked the contradictory provisions in the constitution and local level election laws, trying to justify postponing elections for time being. According to Article 225 of the constitution, election to local bodies should be held within six months from the completion of the five-years tenure of current local representatives. However, Clause 3 of the Local Level Election Laws clearly stipulates that local elections should be held two months prior to the expiry of the term of these representatives.
Constitutional experts advised the government as the constitution is the supreme law of the land, it should prevail in disputes. The government intent was to amend the local level election act to make it compatible with the constitutional provisions. But leader of main opposition party KP Oli ruled out any postponement on any pretext. He accused the ruling parties of searching for ways to postpone elections that they feared losing.
Comrade Puhspa Kamal Dahal proposed an election of the House of Representatives prior to local level elections. But that would entail dissolving the parliament prior to the announcement of elections. It would also be in clear violation of an earlier Supreme Court verdict. Thankfully, all local election postponement plans seem to have failed—and rightfully so.
Election postponement may be democratically legitimate in a variety of circumstances, including during natural disasters or humanitarian crises. But in the case of Nepal, there was not a single good reason to postpone local level elections. This might be the reason that the Government of Nepal has at long last agreed to hold elections in line with the proposal of the Election Commission.
The author is former Secretary, Government of Nepal
