Political equality & election systems

It is not very difficult to understand why the Maoists want to hijack Nepali citizens' right to self-determination and want to declare the country republic through the interim parliament. The Maoists want to declare the country republic through the interim parliament because they want to create a political vacuum and fill it. Politically, it is a no-brainer. But why would a party with a goal of establishing a proletarian communist state remain adamant on its demand for proportional electoral system, which is supposed to be one of the best systems to ensure the quality of democracy, might be a bit difficult for some to understand.

Is the election system the culprit behind the current political and social inequality in Nepal or the ongoing rambling is mainly because the electoral system that will be adopted is going to determine the political future of the major political parties? Later is the case. Electoral system matters for political parties because it impacts the distribution of seats in parliament, which in turn influences cabinet durability. In other words, electoral system is not value neutral: It determines the method in which votes are translated into seats and who gets into the parliament and who gets out.

Theoretically, Proportional (PR) system ensures political and social equality better than Majoritarian (MR) system, but is that why the Maoists are after PR system? There is no basis to believe that. When the Maoists are reluctant to accept ethnic political outfits --MPRF and NIFIN -- as legitimate political force and do not want to push for the fulfillment of their legitimate demands, there is no reason -- at least now -- to believe that the Maoists want PR system for ensuring the political and social equality.

Furthermore, when the Maoists do not want to embrace parliamentary democracy and want to ultimately establish a proletarian communist state, on what basis should people of Nepal believe that there is no hidden motive behind the Maoist demand for PR system? As the Maoists are very good at exploiting the system and changing the rules of engagement, the current demand for PR system cannot be judged on the basis of PR system's impact on democratic quality. We have to factor in the Maoists' motive into the equation. It is not about what the PR system can do but what the Maoists want to do with the PR system.

Needless to say, the Maoists have turned Nepal into "Guinea Pig" on which they have been conducting all sorts of experimentation without realizing the future political and social repercussions. What the Maoists in their blind quest for power are not realizing is that, when you try too many things, too fast, you overwhelm the system, which then starts producing negative outcomes. One such example is the division of the state along the ethnicity. The Maoists had hoped to buy unequivocal and ever lasting support of ethnic groups by dividing the nation along the ethnicity, which obviously did not happen.

On contrary, their short-sighted politics backfired and they lost total control in tarai.

Both PR and MR systems have their advantages and disadvantages. Arend Lijphart, in his influential study "Patterns of Democracy" empirically demonstrates that, PR systems are associated with a higher quality of democracy than MR systems. On the other hand, Guy Lardeyret, a staunch supporter of MR system argues that, in MR systems, the political power is concentrated in the hands of a majority, which is unified, with decisive leadership and hence coherent policies and fast-decision making can be promoted. MR system has better chances of having responsive and accountable governments than the PR system mainly because the party in power has to bear clearer responsibility for policy-making.

Furthermore, elections in MR system provide citizens the right either to renew the term of incumbent government or to "throw the irresponsible idiots out." MR system, thus, strengthens the link between constituents and their representatives and ensures accountability.

When it comes to comparing MR and PR systems, there is no universal consensus. Theoretically, MR systems are better at governing, whereas PR systems are better at representing. According to Joel Barkan, proportional system is not the most appropriate for agrarian societies with a relatively low level of development and a large illiterate population. It simply does not produce desired results in representation, accountability, and government effectiveness. As the seats are allocated from the party lists based on the party's proportion of the national votes, representatives are not recognized and cannot be held accountable for residents of a specific constituency. Thus, the weak linkage between representatives and constituents reduces the prospects for the quality of democratic system.

According to MG Schmidt, one of the major drawbacks of PR system is that, in PR systems, accountability tends to evaporate in countless networks, bargaining and search of compromises.

When it comes to the electoral system that is suitable to Nepal, agrarian and ethnically divided society like ours needs MR systems, at least for some years till we have larger pool of educated and well informed voters and competent politicians. In a country like ours, whereby we have a history of a majority government not completing its designated term, more party in the parliament means slow legislative process, increased indecisiveness on issues of national importance, and the chances of frequent dissolution of the parliament and cabinet.

Taagepera and Shugart (1989) empirically demonstrate a direct impact of number of parties in parliament on government durability. According to their "inverse square law to cabinet durability," the number of potential inter-and intra-party conflicts equals the square number of effective parties, and the cabinet durability is reduced by half when the number of potential conflict doubles. In other words, the more parties in the parliament the more conflict between and within these parties, and the more conflict in the parliament, which in turn tremendously increases the chances of brining down the government prematurely. Can an impoverished Nepal afford to have frequent elections?

We must adopt a system that works best in the socio-political context of Nepal rather than one that is theoretically sound. In a country whereby a majority government cannot last for a complete five years, having more parties in the parliament will be a recipe for disaster. It will take partisan politics, which is already at its worst form, towards even more ugly and chaotic direction. Democratic stability will be a mirage due to increase in intra-and inter-party conflicts.

What we need at this point in time is: a responsible, accountable, and efficient government that can maintain law-and-order and come up with sound economic policies to spur economic growth. As far as political equality is concerned, it all depends upon politicians. As long as they keep on distributing the seats in the parliament reserved for civil society members and members of professional organizations shamelessly to the politicians of their own party like they did during the formation of interim parliament, the talk of political equality does not have any relevance. We may have best system in place, but unless the existing insincere behavior of our politicians changes, political and social equality will remain an elusive dream. It is not the electoral system that fails democracy, but politicians that are supposed to abide by the democratic principles and make the institution of election properly work.

Nation on the brink

While the Eight Party Alliance's (EPA) government is trying hard to maintain its composure and portray things as normal, the situation in the country is obviously far from being normal. It has been more than a year since the despotic regime of King Gyanendra crumbled, but with each passing day the future of this largely hungry nation appears bleaker than ever.

People have started asking: What have we, as citizens, achieved since the fall of King Gyanendra's despotic regime?

The nation's democracy is becoming a casualty in the "crossfire" of partisanship. Peace, which the Nepali people longed for so dearly, appears no-where in sight. The outrages against the defenseless populations: the senseless robbing and murder continue unabated. Incidents of marauding raids are increasing at an unprecedented rate.

Our combined desire to have Constituent Assembly (CA) elections is in limbo due to the intra and inter-party power struggle amongst the political parties representing the EPA. Because of inability of the EPA government to secure peace, hold CA elections on time, and bring other positive changes that are long over due, people have started referring the past one year as a "lost year."

The Maoist leaders that once ran for life have become parliamentarians and ministers and are enjoying their heyday. While the Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) are forced to live under sub-human conditions away from their home, the Maoists that chased them away from their homes are riding imported cars — be it state owned or forcibly seized from private citizens.

The NC and UML stalwarts seem to have forgotten the promises made to ordinary Nepalis during the April uprising and are once again busy enjoying their field day in the corridor of Singha Durbar.

The Youth Communist League's (YCL) mayhem continues unchecked in the capital and elsewhere in the country. The two rival factions-the Maoists and the Madhesi People's Rights Forum — are locked in a deadly duel for power in terai. The society that once exemplified harmony is now inching towards anarchy.

To some extent, the ongoing political violence is influenced by opportunities arising from state's weakness to ensure inclusion of ethnic communities and control political nudity of the Maoists.

The government offices in terai have been shut down for months now. The Pahadis have started leaving terai, fearing their lives. The government's power and the administrative structures vital to securing the law and order are shrinking.

Clearly, the political order is being founded on and sustained by violence. In the present day Nepal, violence, not public virtue, seems to be the basis of authority. The ordinary citizens have started suspecting the ability of the government to secure peace, and the Maoist commitment towards democracy.

Unfortunately, they are forced to keep their heads down in the face of the guns that the Maoists have covertly stored and the absence of viable options.

How do these symptoms of a dying political and social order play out? The signs of morbidity are very much evident in the present political, economic, and social life. With the ongoing decay of political and social order, politics is no longer the instrument through which contending interests are conciliated in a structured framework. Investors are shying away and moving towards greener and safer pastures and people have started suspecting those that do not belong to their own ethnic community.

The only things that will be born of this condition is a regime of rapine, despotism, poverty, and powerlessness. The current situation, if not corrected, would lead to an accelerating loss of state sovereignty, concomitant decay of state institutions, and worsen communal violence that is already reshaping social relations.

Furthermore, it will slow down the democratization process, which is essential for pulling Nepal out of poverty and placing it more firmly on the path of stability and sustainable development. It is necessary to stop political violence and lawlessness, because it impedes the necessary economic development. It does so by destroying human lives, economic assets, and through penalizing the accumulation of capital and wealth.

Every society that witnesses political upheaval confronts political violence and lawlessness for a while, but if not controlled, it can spread faster than wild fire and destabilize the essential democratic foundations in long term. Thus, political violence and lawlessness syndrome should be controlled effectively, because if allowed to persist, they could destroy people's right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Organized criminal groups, having nexus with the corrupt officials and politicians, will start mushrooming. Organized crimes as a result of such nexus will be extremely hard to control. A country, if infested by the twin problems or crime and underdevelopment, would have little prospects of developing into a stable and prosperous democracy.

A country like Nepal which has weak institutions is an idle breeding ground for an organized crime and corruption. Crime and corruption thrive best in unstable situations, such as the one Nepal is facing. Thus, before organized crime syndicates and warlords root into our society, the current EPA government should contain political violence and lawlessness.

Nepal is already confronted with high incidence of poverty and backwardness, and therefore, it cannot afford to get locked in a double bind of political violence and poverty. There are no easy ways out of this vicious circle. Thus, political leaders should not commit the same mistakes that they committed during the 1990s. This time around, they should do it and do it right. The Nepalis, who fought hard for democracy, do not deserve anarchy, poverty, and powerlessness.

Establishing a state's authority both in and out of the capital is an essential condition for any political order, including democracy. Building a decentralized system, through devolution of power, may ultimately be the best deterrent against future guerrilla resurgence and sudden outburst of political violence. A well functioning democracy is in everyone's best interest. Hence, the EPA government should work towards strengthening the capacity of the state in traditionally "stateless" areas in order to rein in violence and create space for an unbiased civil society to take root. It is crucial for the consolidation of peace, stability, and democracy in Nepal.

Stop petty politicking

Finally, the Election Commission (EC) has pulled the rabbit out of the hat. With EC's announcement that the Constituent Assembly (CA) elections cannot be held on June 20, the propaganda shop run by the political left is already kicking out conspiracy theories. Instead of owning responsibility for not being able to conduct CA elections on time, the members of the Eight Party Alliance (EPA) are indulging themselves in blame games and mudslinging. They are trying their best to shrug off any responsibilities behind the postponement of the CA elections.

Mistakes have been made by all political parties that are in the government and running the show. The previous Seven Party Alliance (SPA) government's failure to effectively deal with the Maoists and maintain law and order situation in the country and the Maoists' double standard, insincerity towards the peace agreements, and highhandedness are the main culprits behind the postponement of the CA elections.

What our so-called political leaders fail to understand is, error is a part of human's effort to better their life. People make mistakes and it is perfectly normal and humane. Instead of posing as know-it-all gigs, they should apologize for their inability to meet peoples' aspirations. It will not make them small, rather increase their stature. People do make mistakes and are expected to learn from it. Our know-it-all politicians are no exception to the rule. Thus, all members of the EPA, including the prime Minister and his cabinet colleagues should own the responsibility of not being able to hold CA elections on time. Let the era of political righteousness and people-based politics begin.

While the large number of educated people knew very well that under the current circumstances-lawlessness, chaos, and ethnic dissents--the Constituent Assembly (CA) elections could not be held on stipulated date, the majority of the politicians, representing both the left and right margins of the political spectrum, left no stone unturned in persuading innocent citizens that they would pull it off. It's not that our politicians are so “naive” as to not make correct assertions, but they feared political repercussions that come from being the bearer of the news that is distasteful to the citizens. While they were trying their best to persuade citizens that they would hold CA elections at any cost on the stipulated date, many of us could see through their pretense. It was clearly visible that, beneath that sheep's clothing of righteousness, they were satisfying the wolf of their unbridled appetite for self-aggrandizement.

Except for the former Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba and handful of Nepali Congress's (Democratic) leaders, others did not dare to say in public that it was impossible to hold the elections on the planned date in a democratic, fair, and fear-free environment. The timidity of our leaders shows that they have not shed their old habit of focusing on rhetorical politics in favor of righteous and people-based politics.

Terai has not yet reverted back to normalcy and the Maoists have not yet surrendered their hidden weapons. The Home Minister's deadline for the surrender of additional weapons, which the Maoists have once again defied, has silently passed. When the government offices in terai have been shut down for more than a month now and the Maoists are still roaming around with weapons in the rural areas, what's the probability of having a democratic, free, and fair election? Even if the CA elections were held on stipulated date, would they be democratic, free, fair, and representative? If not, what's the point of having a forced- elections?

Many of our politicians, who initially thought that allowing the Maoists to share power would secure peace and stability, are once again bewildered and seem to think that holding CA elections is the solution to all our woes. If the whole idea behind having forced CA elections is to have an outcome that suits the EPA in the government rather than what people want, we should not be having CA elections at all. The EPA should come to a consensus about what outcome best suits them and get it endorsed by the interim parliament. The whole drama of holding the CA elections and letting it to be stolen at a gun point by the Maoists is not a healthy democratic practice; it is rather a perversion of the democratic process.

There are many, who think that CA elections should be held on the stipulated date because they doubt that if CA elections are not held now, they will never be held. Those vouching for forced-elections should reflect on, whether we want CA elections for the heck of it or we want CA elections to be meaningful and representative? It is not necessarily true that because our leaders in the past failed, the new lot too will fail. The current leaders are probably one of the best lots we ever had. It is just that they have to shun their practice of rhetorical politics and know-it-all attitude in favor of righteous and people-based politics.

What we need to understand is, elections provide a peaceful, democratic means for societies to make collective decisions, and the mad rush towards forced-elections when the environment is not conducive does not contribute towards the very ideal that we are aiming to achieve.

It is necessary to secure peace and stability before holding any election mainly because, in order to establish genuine democracy, societies need to foster the democratic culture and rule of law that guarantees “free and fair elections.” The successful democratization of Nepalese society largely depends on the success of free and fair elections, which form the body of democratic process, and whose realization is crucial for Nepal's transition from the today's situation of political chaos to democratic rule and the process of democratic consolidation. Furthermore, conduction of free and fair elections is a critical step we must take if we are to continue down the path to democracy. Many people, including a greater majority of our politicians, vouch for holding forced elections, without understanding the importance of quality elections. They fail to understand that “free and fair” elections are integral part of the process which guarantees the progress towards a consolidated democracy.

Robert Dahl, in his 1956 monumental work, A Preface to Democratic Theory describes free and fair elections as the culmination of the process, not the beginning. According to Dahl, until most of the fundamental rights and freedoms of democracy have firmly rooted in the society it is not possible to hold "free and fair" elections. Hence, the pre-election period determines the rest of the electoral process and the subsequent outcome. CA elections, if held in the present context, would not reflect people's choice. We must understand how freedom contrasts with coercion. As Dahl explains, freedom implies the right to make choices, whereas coercion, on the other hand, implies the absence of choice. In the present context, people are yet to overcome the Maoists' reign of terror and are not in a position to make choices. Until and unless the covertly stored weapons by the Maoists are harvested and the law and order situation is improved, coercion of the voters cannot be undermined. Furthermore, in societies like ours that have been engulfed in deep-rooted conflict, wherein individual and collective rights have been severely undermined, mere having an election does not guarantee a successful transition to democracy; if that is what we are aiming for.

Instead of owning the responsibility for not being able to fulfill peoples' desire to have CA elections on time, the Maoists and the other communist parties in the government are trying to cover up their insincerity and incompetence by declaring the country republic through the interim parliament. What an example of moral decay.

In Western democracies, political parties do not dare to undermine people's right to decide and conduct referendum on issues that affect the well being of the society. However, in Nepal, those who have never sought peoples' mandate are the ones that are in mad rush and want to deprive people of their right to decide and want to make decisions that are detrimental to Nepal's emergence as a sovereign democratic state through the interim parliament. Nepal will emerge as a democracy only when people are allowed to decide on crucial issues. If politicians' subversion of people's democratic right to choose is not curbed, Nepal will finally end up becoming an unrepresentative and illiberal democracy. Concomitantly, the Nepali people will increasingly alienate themselves from politics and government. Is that what we want?