Electoral system and political stability

Of late, a very intense and interesting discourse is taking place in Nepal among the intellectuals, academicians and politicians over the present electoral system in general and the proportional representation (PR) system in particular. Some intellectuals and politicians associated with big political parties are arguing against the present PR system by portraying it as a ‘main cause’ of frequent changes in government. They are trying to spread the message that the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system is the only way to ensure stable governance in the country. But their line of argument is scientifically and democratically unjustified, incorrect and against the concept of inclusive democracy, something which our Constitution has upheld.

The context: Before the introduction of a mixed electoral system, Nepal was practicing the FPTP system. After decades-long practice, the country opted for a mixed electoral system to minimize the demerits of the FPTP system, mainly in view of the role of money, muscles and caste factors in the elections. Inclusivity or mainstreaming of marginalized communities, groups and regions, a mandate of the 12-point understanding signed between the then Seven-Party Alliance and the Maoist rebels in 2005, the Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA) signed in 2006, the Interim Constitution and TOR documents of the ‘revolution’, was another factor behind a switch to the mixed system.

Discourse during statute-drafting: As a member of the then Constituent Assembly (CA) and one of the active members of the Constitution Drafting Committee, let me recall that there was a hot debate and interactive discussion on the electoral system, and a general agreement in the end that continuing with the FPTP system as the sole electoral system was neither possible nor appropriate. So, the main focus and stress was on the ratio of FPTP and the PR system, though some members sought the FPTP system while some others sought the PR system and not a mix of both. Initially, the PR percentage was 60, which was reduced to 40 percent in the present Constitution.

Positions of political parties: Back then, the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML were for giving more weightage to the FPTP system, whereas the Maoists and Madhes-based parties were for giving more weightage to the PR system. With different arguments and counter-arguments coming, it was a very hot, hard and sometimes unfriendly conversation.

A compromise formula: The present mixed system is a compromise between two schools of thoughts, a marriage between modernity and traditionality, that is, a marriage between inclusive and participatory democracy, and formal democracy (representing a handful of people). Back then, the electoral system was one of the core issues of contention and it was resolved at the last moment of Constitution promulgation.

Causes of instability: The politicians rooting for the elimination of the PR system are trying to convince the people that the PR system is the main cause behind a frequent change of guard. But does this logic hold water? In fact, it’s a false statement and a false premise as the history of governance in Nepal shows along with the history of other countries with similar experiences. 

Let’s look at the contemporary history of Nepal to shed more light on this topic. 

In the general elections held after the restoration of multiparty democracy with constitutional monarchy in 1990 under the FPTP system, the Nepali Congress won a resounding mandate to form a government. But his government collapsed in July 1994, barely three years after its formation as it failed to get a vote in the Parliament regarding the budget, pushing the country into midterm elections. 

History repeated itself as the KP Sharma Oli-led majority government, installed on the basis of the mixed electoral system and supposed to rule for a full five years, collapsed toward the end of July, 2016, hardly nine months after its formation, following the breakup of the coalition.

These examples show that the electoral system has not much to do with the stability of a government or a lack thereof. Rather, stability or instability is a political issue, not necessarily a function of the electoral system. It has more to do with factors like the political leadership of the day, government’s performance and good governance and far less to do with the electoral system. 

The perils and the way forward: Calls for doing away with the mixed system are coming from some short-sighted leaders of big political parties. The ongoing debate over the electoral system is welcome, but the prescription for doing away with the PR system is extremely bad.

Doing away with the PR system, especially with regard to the elections for the House of Representatives, may be counterproductive and may cause political conflict and instability because it is an emotive issue connected with inclusivity and mainstreaming in a multicultural, multiracial, multilingual and multi-geographic country whether class, race, region and gender-related oppression and discrimination persist, among others. An inclusive state is the demand of the time and so is an  inclusive Parliament. Therefore, the PR system must continue. However, it is very important to eliminate the role of money and favoritism in the selection of candidates under the PR system, for which serious discussions are necessary. 

Views are personal. The author can be reached at [email protected]