In Nepal, it is not uncommon for political parties to make unsubstantiated claims of vote rigging when elections do not go their way. While most of them have been sore losers, they don’t seem to have given much thought to making elections more free and fair. No wonder public trust in elections is going down, as hinted by the relatively low voter turnout in the May 13 local elections.  

This time, it is the turn of the main opposition, CPN-UML, to cry foul over the outcome even as vote counting is still underway. The party, led by former prime minister KP Oli, has accused the ruling five-party alliance of using the police administration to influence election results not just before and during the vote, but also during vote-counting. The Election Commission has yet to respond to the opposition’s claim.

The main ruling party, Nepali Congress (NC), on the other hand, has criticized the UML’s remarks as “irresponsible”. Prakash Sharan Mahat, the party’s spokesperson, says the UML’s claim is tantamount to “defamation of the Election Commission.”

The EC and poll observers say that the May 13 polls were largely fair and peaceful, with about 64 percent voter turnout. While voting was postponed in some booths due to disputes among political parties, there were no reports of vote-rigging. Unlike in previous elections, there were also no political forces boycotting or threatening to undermine the polls this time. Even the Netra Bikram Chand-led Communist Party of Nepal and the CK Raut’s Janamat Party—two major threats to the previous elections—participated in the polls this time.

So there is little if any evidence to lend credence to the UML’s vote-rigging claims.  If something goes wrong during voting, party representatives can immediately flag the issue, and if there is clear evidence of fraud, the EC can cancel the elections. The UML raised the issue three days after the elections. The party went so far as to claim that the ruling coalition worked in cahoots with the Ministry of Home Affairs to “capture the boots in several places”.

Pradip Pokharel, chairperson of Election Observation Committee Nepal, says the elections were largely peaceful, free, and fair, and that their “monitoring does not match the UML’s claims.”

“We haven’t found a single case of UML representatives raising this issue in any polling station or vote-counting center,” he says. The committee had dispatched 409 observers to monitor the elections.

Adherence to the election code of conduct, too, was found to be largely satisfactory. Poll observers say, compared to the past, the election process and management were more organized, peaceful, and acceptable.

“The elections were far fairer and more peaceful than we had anticipated,” says Pokharel. “We feared that rivalry among major parties could lead to widespread violence, but that did not happen.”

In the past, vote-rigging claims have also been made by the Congress, CPN (Maoist Center), and other parties.

In 1997, a coalition government of the UML and the Rastriya Prajatantra Party had conducted local elections. After the UML emerged as the largest party in the elections, the main opposition at the time, Congress, accused the then home minister, Bam Dev Gautam, of mobilizing the police force in UML’s favor.

Congress lawmakers obstructed the House of Representatives for several days, demanding a probe. The issue subsided after some time. Birendra P. Mishra was one of the election commissioners at that time. “But no committee was formed to address the demand of the Congress party,” he says.

Similarly, on 3 May 1999 Nepal held the elections of Parliament in which the Congress emerged as the largest party. Invariably, this caused the losing parties to protest. The UML, Sadbhawana Party, and Rastriya Prajatantra Party obstructed the House, demanding a panel to investigate alleged electoral fraud.

This time, the Parliament did form a high-level panel led by Prime Minister Krishna Prasad Bhattarai of Congress. But the panel did not make much headway.

In 2013, it was the Maoist Center and Madhes-based parties who tried to use the vote-rigging card after it became clear that they were going to lose the Constituent Assembly elections. After the parties refused to join the assembly, a parliamentary probe committee was formed under lawmaker Laxman Lal Karna. Again, the investigation was a dud. The report submitted by the committee is gathering dust at the parliamentary secretariat.

The 2017 local elections were not controversy-free either. The polls were held in multiple phases and after the first phase, the UML was accused of vote-rigging and a probe panel was formed, and, predictably enough, nothing came of it.

None of the panels formed so far to investigate electoral frauds have come up with concrete evidence.

“All these panels have suggested taking measures to make the election more free and fair, but they have failed to provide substantial evidence of vote-rigging,” says Mishra.

This is not to say that Nepal’s elections are completely free of controversy. There have been cases of fraud and duplicate voters in the past, but the election governing body has taken a slew of measures to address them. Cases of booth capture have also gone down with the passage of time.

Accusations of vote-buying surface at each election, and this time was no different. But without solid evidence, such cases are hard to confirm.

When parties make unsubstantiated claims of vote-rigging, there is a risk of people losing faith in the electoral system and ultimately in democracy.

Mishra says parties should refrain from making such claims without solid proof. “Questioning the fairness and integrity of elections has become common for the parties when they lose. This undermines the sanctity of the Election Commission and by extension of the Nepali democracy, he says.

Meena Poudel, a political analyst, says it is unfortunate that the claims of electoral fraud are coming from the parties that have led governments and staged elections in the past. 

“There is already enough public frustration with the current political and electoral systems,” she says. “Such baseless claims only add fuel to the flames of public skepticism.”