Home >> South Asia >> Nepal & Bhutan

     Email   Print 

Nepal: Party Line Politics or Political Dilemma

Prakash Bom - 11/21/2007

Party line politics implies hunger for power and if it is the root cause of political impasse then it is not that difficult to figure it out. But if it is political dilemma then it is a question of misconception. Misconceptions can inevitably mislead the nation. For example, if Maoists are sincerely committed to democracy as per their agreements with the alliance (SPA), then they cannot be ambitious with their ideology of totalitarianism. If they do then that would not only be just fallacy but also utter betrayal of people's aspiration for democracy.

At any rate, neither Maoists nor NC leaderships can mislead democracy with the people's aspiration for inclusive democracy – "federal democratic republic'. People demand republic not because they are leftist totalitarians but because if they keep the institution of feudal monarchy even as a ceremonial they will be excluded under its system of legatee. People claim federal democratic system of governance not because they plot to divide the nation but because they desire their active role in nation building process by taking responsibilities of their constituencies. Federalism as a system of government lays such governing mechanism from local to the central state of affairs.

Party line politics is reconcilable in multi-party democracy. But misconceptions need clarity in politics. If clarity is obstructed then political impasse is unavoidable. For example, why did Maoists accept mixed electoral system for CA elections while UML had proposed PR electoral system? It is still not clear what it means a full PR electoral system that NC opposes in order to include at least ten percent FPTP (First Past the Post or winner take all with vote of 51% majority) based on plurality voting system. More over, what would be like the ballot box of full PR? Would that be based on open party list voting or closed party list voting? Again such disparity for making a choice should not make the political impasse if all are concerned honestly for political clarity to avoid misconceptions.

Most of all, the fundamental question of PR is about its basis for the representation. Is it based on the ethnicity group votes or overall voters' population of a constituency? If it is based on the ethnicity then it will be next to impossible to accomplish it because all ethnic groups of people are spread all over the country almost in all constituencies. Demographically none can be confined to a specific region of constituencies completely. Representations of ethnicity, gender, and all deprived minority must be based on voters' population of each constituency that political parties select for their PR list quota. Naturally, the proportional representations for ethnicity, gender and deprived community will depend on the realistic PR list quota match of political party as per population percent of the constituency.

PR is based on multimember representations or multiple winners (votes count for multi-party, multi-candidate on percent distribution) on the basis of voter population of a constituency. For instance, in a ten-seat constituency if NC received 50% of the votes it will represent five seats, if Maoist received 30% of votes it will represent three seats and if UML received 20% of votes it will represent two seats. Unlike FPTP – 'winner take all' electoral system possibility of ties and run-offs in PR are rare. Even the number of different party draws the same percent of votes will not make tie. It is by name as proportional is as most scientific, democratic, and economic electoral system of all.

As nations are by large becoming diverse in population due to global economy even the Anglo Saxon dominated democratic nations that had adopted FPTP by status quo are beginning to adopt PR electoral system in their state and local level to allow all diverse population representations. For example, the United Kingdom's FPTP system is boiled down to national parliamentary and local government elections only in England. Rest of the elections for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and EU Parliament is based on PR.

United States' FPTP system except for the presidential election, which is determined by the Electoral College and popular vote count, has multiple representations in Senate and House at federal, state and local government levels. Two senators for each state and number of congressperson based on the populations of the state are elected for the federal Senate and House. All most all states' local elections have some sort of PR. California has introduced legislation for adopting PR system. The state and local governments have started implementing party list PR system.

FPTP electoral system based on horse racing analogy dominates nations of ex British colonies including the United States' presidential race. Most of the western European nations have party list PR electoral system except France and UK. India's upper house has PR system. Since Nepali politics, particularly NC, has been dominated by the Anglo-Indian politics it is obvious for NC to demand ten percent horse racing system for CA elections. Maoists should consider in negotiating with it even though the future electoral system of Nepal must be full PR party list.

As a matter of fact, declaration of republic and implementation of (Full) party list PR for the accomplishment of CA elections is the positive move of the nation towards inclusive democracy. The leaderships who can foresee this with the confidence will have courage to make the history. The only leadership who has this mandate of people to lead the nation is GP Koirala.

None of the NC leaders have vision and clarity for the nation that has been abused for centuries by the feudal Hindu traditional mind and torn more than decade by Maoists insurgency, except those who are in the line of thinking of Narahai Acharya. All those who have topped the hierarchical ladder can only maneuver the politics of status quo -'BT buff-party' to owe the innocent voters. For example, Mr. Deupa and Susil Koirala (with due respect) do not have full-fledged state of mind for the inclusive democracy that can mandate federal democratic republic and PR electoral system for coming generation to lean on.

The news that Prime Minister and NC president GP Koirala is about to make a decision for declaring the nation republic with the condition that King Gyanendra will continue residing in Narayanhiti Royal Palace until CA elections accomplished peacefully is absolutely rational and appropriate historical move. SPA must have unanimous consensus to endorse Prime Minister's decision. Maoists must trust the functionality of the condition. The nation must move forward with the CA elections. If Maoists again impedes with their misconceptions of democracy that guarantees liberty and protects rights of people of all class and profession then it will be clear that they are not for the aspiration of people for democracy but for their own party's dream for the totalitarian dictatorship. Certainly, for the Maoists top brass it will be very difficult to portrait themselves in the image of Mao and Stalin.