Chief Election Commissioner Dinesh Kumar Thapalia is leaving on the 6th of Baisakh with the experience of conducting all the elections prescribed by the constitution, including the House of Representatives, the Provincial Assembly, and the local level. In the last two years of his six-year term, he introduced legal reform proposals to address the problems faced by parties and elections.

Despite sending it as a draft, the government is delaying its introduction as a bill. Chief Election Commissioner Dinesh Kumar Thapalia Durga Khanal of Kantipur and Rajesh Mishra

on electoral reforms with 6 years of experience:

6 years ago, what commitment did you make to the Parliament and what did you do during this period?

I have been reviewing the action plans submitted to the Parliamentary Hearing Committee every three/four months. Now, in the latter half of the term, I am still reviewing where the work has reached. In order to implement all the action plans that I have submitted, it appears that some aspects of our organizational structure need to be amended and modified. So most of the things have started except the overall management work. Because many things are left to decide rather than do. Almost

60 topics can be improved in the law. We have submitted the law, but even after 20/21 months, it has not progressed. During this period, policy, structural, legal and other managerial ways have been tried to improve and change. 

The most important thing connected with the election is the confidence of the commission towards the people. How do you feel about your tenure in this matter?

Our current overall election management process looks like a new laboratory of old patterns. Tradition and modernity seem to coincide. Traditional things have not been left behind, modern things are also being brought in there. Winning the trust of the people starts with how easily his name gets entered in the electoral roll. Enrollment in the electoral roll is linked to citizenship. If citizenship is easy, voter registration is also easy. Candidates, voting, counting of votes, political parties and expenses incurred by candidates are always criticized. All these issues should be improved to increase trust. The more we improve and make it transparent, the more trust we will win.

We have a constitution, but laws have been made by violating what the constitution says and there are rules accordingly. If you look at everyone's situation, there is a rule, the intention is not right. There is a security mechanism, staffing mechanism but not what the commission is looking for. Political parties have leaders, not leadership. There are voters, but no expertise. We have not even reached the point of where and how to vote. A resident of a remote area has to walk three hours to cast his vote. A voter in an urban area does not go to vote even if there is a polling station three minutes away. The candidate is qualified but the papers submitted by him are not correct. The more effective all these environments are, the greater the credibility. It becomes a position of fairness and neutrality. The credibility of the election should be seen within the overall system. 

The Election Commission remains active during elections, but what does it do in the years that follow?

At the time of the election, the resources and manpower are extremely high and it is difficult to manage them. But the most important period is the pre-election period. It lasts for about four years. But a period of four years seems too slow. It should be changed. In the meantime, the Electoral Commission will continue the process of legal reform. Now we are also going to reform the law. Purification of the voter list, subject to information technology, and 'relocating' polling stations are also done. Even now we are engaged in this work.

The commission under your leadership ran on the strength of power. It was also alleged that big and small parties were discriminated against. During the division of CPN, the decision was not given for a long time, later the dispute reached the Supreme Court. But when the other party Jaspa tried to divide Nepal, did you decide immediately?

s are criticisms without getting into the subject matter. As such, the dispute of the CPN was not a matter of disintegration or division. We did not want to split the party. There was a dispute that the remaining office bearers would remove each other. The removal should be approved by the commission. The Commission will not change the officials. The decision is sent to the Central Committee only to be documented. The issue of removal of an official called 'A' by the group called 'B' is his internal matter. The issue of Jaspa Nepal is party disintegration. 40 percent may rupture. The commission will look at the number, if the number is enough, it will be fixed.

The topic of political party division is a topic connected with many interests. When the Political Parties Act was made in 2048, there was no concept of party division. But later we created a strong political commentary that if we split the parties into pieces in the party system, the party system can be institutionalized and strengthened. We have suffered the punishment of that for almost three decades. It is said that if the party splits, it will become stronger. The Election Commission is not in principle in favor of this.

You associate with parties, leaders. See the law. What weaknesses are there in our party and legal systems?

Let's talk about the first team. We say that the language written in the constitution should be followed. Looking at it from that point of view, our constitution says that the constitution of the party should be democratic and inclusive so that social diversity is represented. According to the federal structure, the committee, convention and all officers should be elected every 5 years to 5 and a half years. But when the law was made, it was corrupted. We put the word election or nomination in the Act. The constitution says election, the law says nomination. Election and nomination are not the same thing.

parties compulsorily hold a convention and elect a certain person from it as president and delegate the right to elect other office-bearers. And the Election Commission is bound to accept the working committee as elected. Therefore, our political parties are still not institutionalized in terms of internal democracy, financial management, fiscal governance, adherence to inclusiveness and reaching their policies, ideas and programs to the masses. There are organizations of

parties, but they have not been institutionalized. Now there are 121 political parties. Three we corresponded with a while ago. About 80 parties do not know where their offices are. Should we believe that those who carry a party in their pocket will make the country prosperous? Party can be opened, not opposed to it. But if the party itself is not institutionalized, how can governance be institutionalized? If the letter is written to the parties to comply with what is in the law, it is understood in the sense that the Commission is trying to put pressure on them. It is understood in the sense of trying to control. 

From time to time we also heard some political parties talking about directly elected executive system. So now, when we are making the election law, we proposed that we should make arrangements with some parties to directly elect the president of the political party. First, if this method was successful in the party, then it was taken as an example and later implemented in the country. Even if there is no democracy in your party, and the same party will look for a direct system in the country? Our proposal is to start such work from the party itself.

 In studying all the world's systems, no one anywhere is completely satisfied. Should the system be replaced if there is a problem? The current problems can be corrected through legislation. That is why we have put forward a proposal to amend the law. Whatever system we bring, we must improve the technical, managerial and legal problems of elections. Making the party strong and people-oriented should be done regardless of the system. 

How well-managed have our parties been from an economic point of view?

The election commission directly feels that political parties from their annual statements. We have to get it audited by the Auditor General. Another commission is the out-of-pocket expenses. It is not official. Now the party's spending system should be changed. Will the state itself tie the party to a legal structure and arrange the expenses?

Now it is the position of the candidate who can mobilize access, power and money. What should be done to prevent it?

This situation is seen all over the world. This is a concern all around. Not only Nepal. In our context, there is a question of honesty of political parties. A situation has been created where it is not possible to directly take candidature. In 2048, 2051, 2056 even those who did not have money stood up and won elections. What can be done then does not mean that it cannot be done now. If it was completed in 2064, why was it built that could not be completed in 2084? What is the reason for that? People have started asking for money? No, in my opinion, the political party, its candidate is the reason for this.

I have to win in any way, using all the power for that is the fault in the mentality of abuse of state power. That is why the first thing is the matter of purification of the party. Even the Election Commission cannot escape saying that. The commission monitors spending around the world. It cannot be managed by the eyes of the commission alone. Therefore, it is our proposal to appoint some posts and places and give the responsibility of monitoring the election expenses to an independent body. We also tried to use the authority in the previous elections. However, it was not possible.

Have we ever insulted the sovereignty of the electorate? In reality, the people are eating contaminated money made by political parties or candidates? That the middleman is earning? Politics has gone into the hands of middlemen or have people asked not to vote without money? No one has studied it. When you meet most of the people, you don't hear voters asking for money. With the loyalty we have made a political party. Such a situation has been created due to the fact that the feeling of serving the nation has been shed in them. Therefore, its improvement should be sought from there. Apart from that, the commission, the media and the society as a whole must act against it.

There is a lack of law by which the Commission can take action even against employees who engage in bullying during the election. Such situations have also caused problems for the Commission. An employee has signed the ballot paper in a polling station in Dolakha before the scheduled election time in the local elections. There was a dispute. Voting could not be held that day. We do not have a law to punish that employee. In Rautahat, a party worker looted the ballot box and carried it on his shoulder. set fire We also requested the local administration to prosecute him. There was no trial. It is necessary to rise above this situation.

In that case, will the Commission not be able to take action against those who bullied in the election?

Let me give you an example. Voting was going on till 3 am at a polling station in Bajura. After that, the personnel of the security agencies who were there were suddenly ordered to come back. I don't know who gave it. We got that information. We asked them to keep the ballot box safe. However, there is a difference in the order of the Election Commission and the Ministry of Home Affairs. We wanted to complete the election anyway. It is not possible to say with what exact desire that was done, but probably seeing that someone was going to lose, there was a different order to the security agency than what the commission wanted. After investigating, we asked some to take action. People are changed. However, no action was taken. 

is conducted during elections in neighboring India under the direction of overall security agencies and personnel commissions. After the election date is fixed, it is as if the government is the Election Commission. But, we don't have that kind of right to the Commission?

The commission does not provide the people it says or wants for election purposes. Constitutional bodies need similar manpower to function. However, due to the lack of that, it is difficult to have the effect that the commission said.

The commission has drafted a bill for new election laws. What are the efforts to improve the election?

We have asked to improve the management of election laws. Its reform will bring about positive changes in political parties from giving tickets to winning. Similarly, an environment will be created where elections will be held quickly. Draws a roadmap for comprehensive reform. The proposed bill lays the groundwork for further ensuring women's representation and inclusion.

The constitution says that one-third of women should be represented in the federal parliament and state assembly. Currently, women are not made candidates for the first election system. Even if made, that number is only a name. We have also said that at least 33 percent of women should be nominated on the direct side, that too on an inclusive basis. The current law does not follow the constitutional provisions accordingly. Proposals for necessary improvements have been made. We have asked to amend the electoral law and the law related to political parties accordingly. If the two laws are amended, it will automatically improve the election management work of the Election Commission.

After the announcement of the election, the decision of the Election Commission regarding personnel management and election security will be final, and the instructions of the commission should be implemented. If even that cannot be done, a joint command force should be formed in the Election Commission and an environment should be created to issue orders and implement them. In the event of a conflict between the Government's order and the Election Commission's expectations, the work of the Commission will be affected. Overall, there will be a dimensional change if the laws are improved in terms of making elections clean, free and fair.

Currently, there is a legal provision at the local level that the mayor or village head vice president cannot serve more than two terms. However, presidents of political parties remain the same person for twenty or thirty years. What has the commission tried to improve it?

In the bill proposed for the amendment of the Act on Political Parties, we have said that the political parties should make such things clear in their statutes. In the legislation, we have proposed to make three things mandatory: qualification, age limit and experience of the officials there. The party itself had to decide what qualifications to keep. The people looked at what he had put in, what kind of party he was. We have said the age limit rather than how many times. It was talked about how much age the relevant political party gives the right to do politics within their party. However, we have said that it should be specified.

It is the law that binds everyone. If the law does not speak clearly on that matter, will the parties adopt it?

In the party system, the people select the party based on which party's constitution, whose system is more democratic, etc. The attraction of the voters behind the party that promotes the legislation itself may be less. That is why we have asked to make the law better. We didn't see that we could do it right away. Constitution and custom should also be looked at. However, I think that the parties themselves should develop the principle that no person should remain in the same position for more than two terms. And, the age limit should also be set. It would be better if the parties included this in the legislation.

Some major parties are saying that due to the current mixed electoral system, no party can win a majority. Is it the fault of the electoral system that no single party can get a majority?

Election Commission has also been told this indirectly. Dissatisfaction with the system has been expressed that the election expenses were high and the second majority did not come. They have their own views on why the majority did not come. To say that political instability will continue, the constitution of 2072 certainly did not include the provisions of the current electoral system.

is definitely not like that. Should the system written in 2072 be revised in 2078? How does such a thought come about? Even in the first election system, proportional inclusion can be arranged. On the direct side, arrangements can be made to compel the parties to field candidates according to the percentage of inclusive groups. Direct elections are also inclusive. Britain has proven this.

In my opinion, the electoral system can be debated. However, it is not necessary to change immediately. Isn't it trying to stop the issue of reforming the entire electoral process by raising the issue of the system? I doubt that. We have talked about reforms within the party. We also suspect that they are trying to stop it. America has been running the country through the same system for a long time. Here, the same generation has seen the election of Panchayat, multi-party, democracy and republican system. 

I have seen the elections conducted by four systems. Now why the fifth system? It is wrong to blame the electoral system for not being able to get a majority. Any political party will seek people's votes with its policy principles. Can't you blame the system? Even those who have similar ideas and principles have gone through integration. 121 parties are registered in the commission. However, if we look at their theories and ideas, they belong to 4/5 types of groups. Like-minded people stay together. There was more talk of splitting the party, not unity. If it becomes a strong political party, it will get a majority. There is no system or law to prevent majority. 

It is said that the issues of the province got overshadowed when the state and representative assembly elections were held simultaneously. Is it necessary to change the election time?

It has been suggested that three elections should be held on different dates. Now in India, there is a debate that all the elections should be held on the same day. The study is going on. There is talk of One Nation, One Alexan. They are taking Nepal's success as an example in this matter. In the US, a voter casts about 30 ballots on a single day. If the election is to be effective, in my opinion, all levels of elections can be held at once.  When

is included at the local level, a slight change should be made in the ballot box and ballot paper. And you have to go to the scanning mode for calculation. The money to buy the machine comes from the expenses of that election. Vacant positions should be held immediately. Electoral bodies should be very dynamic. If the ward member, ward president becomes vacant, the structure should be allowed to be elected. The decision of the center should not be waited for electing the ward president. Let's arrange that. It is right to amend the constitution and hold elections at all three levels at the same time. Let's do it together instead of always being lazy in elections. The Commission can.