Home >> South Asia >> Nepal & Bhutan

     Email   Print 

CA Elections & Choice of Ballot Modality

Prakash Bom - 12/19/2007

Political propaganda in twenty first century can hardly be a political assertion of a political party no matter how influential it is and how big historical baggage it has carried over a period of time particularly in a country like Nepal which has no democratic establishments for people to lean on. Political propaganda which is utter lie must not be taken for granted no matter how real it appears in the news media. As politicians news media are equally responsible for such propaganda unless news media have guts to study the statements and make critical comments on the issues.

For example, some of the NC leaders have arbitrarily made such statements that claimed 'Proportional Representation Electoral System' an indirect electoral system opposed to "First Past the Post Electoral system" as direct election system. But none of the major news media looked at the statement critically. Nonetheless all media published the assertion in their headlines. Now all Nepali news papers state "First Past the Post Electoral System" a direct election system which contradicts itself by running up utter propaganda. Therefore, both asserters and the publishers are equally responsible for such misinformation. This is what is called party-line politics that take no responsibility for the common good of the people.

But countries like ours which has survived centuries under the feudal salivary and caste-system segregations people need clear democratic guideline that is devoid of outright misconceptions for democracy. The first past the post system is an electoral system that was originally designed by England (prior to the formation of the United Kingdom). England is the only state under UK in Western Europe which has sustained the feudal tradition of governance. Therefore, still it is exercising FPTP electoral system for its representatives in the Parliament. However, rest of other states of UK such Scotland, Northern Ireland has eliminated FPTP and they send their representatives to the Parliament through Open List PR electoral system.

In reality the FPTP electoral system excludes 41% of electorates' vote of a constituency. It is the most costly electoral system that only rich group of people can afford whether it is implemented in poor or rich countries. As a result, the majority of winners in this system are always the rich. It is exception for poor to win in this system. On the contrary that PR is the most inexpensive electoral system that counts 100% of the electorates' vote of a constituency. Therefore, the most of the Western European nations and EU has implemented PR electoral system. There are including EU nineteen countries in Europe that have implemented Open List PR electoral system. In whole world there are sixty five countries which have implemented PR electoral system and they have the most stable governments.

It is in fact the FPTP electoral system that gives power of monopoly to rich people. It is therefore 'Disproportional Representation Electoral System' –for example, to win the candidate and her or his political party must have abundant capital to spend. The FPTP forces the candidates and the parties to gamble if not the investment. Therefore, in poor nations like ours such electoral system encourages corruptions. Thus, we must fight harder to eliminate FPTP as a feudal democratic system of election that excludes proportional representation in democracy. For the fundamental reasons of inclusive democracy and economic development of Nepal Full PR electoral system must be implemented.

This means no tradition of nomination that is based on the result of the FPTP percent of CA elections. If the PR is to be implemented with nominations as such then it is not PR. Proportional representation electoral system is that electoral system which has provision to validate hundred percent of the votes that have been cast in a constituency. PR electoral system cannot be implemented with the nominations based on the percent of the result of FPTP elections. This resembles the model of Upper House elections of the Parliament of India that cannot fulfill the principle of Full PR electoral system. If in the name of PR such tradition is implemented then this system should be called "Indirect Electoral System". This is not at all PR electoral system.

In PR electoral system the number of representatives cannot be determined randomly with the political consensus of the SPA. The population of the electorates of a constituency must determine the number of representatives. If this is not demographically calculated to establish rational numbers of the representatives then again it does not fulfill the principle of the PR electoral system. It is worth to fight for the Full PR system for the CA elections than mixed electoral system of which PR will be determined by the result percent of the FPTP election. This is a bingo for the rich to have political monopoly in democracy.

Among all models of PR electoral system 'Open Party List' is the most practiced and successful model. World's all most all nations' PR electoral system has implemented "OPL" ballot model. In this model party list of candidates are published. Voters have right to choose between parties and individual candidates. For example, a voter who is decided to vote for NC party list may not vote for the particular candidate. Instead he or she might vote for an individual candidate from the Maoist party list. In terms of voters' freedom to choose and voters' vote count for the representative of a constituency OPL PR electoral system is considered to be the best model of all. This is heads-up for NC leaders and cadres to gather authentic information on issue of voters' freedom about which they make not only too much fuss but also arbitrary statements. If they are honestly interested in voters' freedom then they should double check the information on the web – the open and toll free information highway.

Among NC many other political leaderships and professional elites accusations against PR electoral system that it can jeopardize the national integrity is thoughtless and irrational because PR electoral system is based on the principle of all inclusiveness in democracy. Despite Maoists being hardliner communists in principle it is far democratic of them to endorse PR electoral system along with other leftists. It is the responsibility of other Democratic Party like NC to encourage them to find more democratic PR ballot modality such as 'Open Party List' PR if NC is honestly dedicated to establish institutions of democracy in which people of Nepal can depend on for their civil rights and liberty.

It is irresponsible of NC to insist on the FPTP electoral system with its party line politics. Once people discover (through honest news media) PR electoral system is the system of people that has a provision to validate their votes hundred percent. The best thing for those who have endorsed PR electoral system is to keep fighting for the Full PR electoral system. But, if instead the process of nomination is implemented in the name of PR electoral system then Maoists and all other leftists support for PR will be boiled down to party line politics. In this case, Nepal will be ruled by the disproportional representations that are dominated by the affluent class monopoly.