Chief Election Commissioner Dinesh Kumar Thapalia has raised a question about the basis on which the election system is said to be an obstacle to the stability, development and prosperity of the government in the country. He has said that rather than relying on facts and logic, he is expressing the need to change the electoral system based on what is in the minds of political party leaders.

Emphasizing that the current election system does not prevent any political party from getting a majority, Thapalia said that it should be shown which article of the constitution and which section of the law has prevented the political parties from getting a majority. 

Chief Election Commissioner Thapalia also stated the fact that when a single political party won the majority in Nepal, more political instability occurred and the term of the Parliament was not completed . Chief Election Commissioner Thapalia made this statement at an interaction program on 'Electoral Reforms in Nepal: Aspects, Reasons and Relevance of Reforms' organized by the Parliamentary Affairs Journalist Society in Kavre on Saturday.

Congress and UML, the two major political parties in the parliament, agreed to change the electoral system for the stability, development and prosperity of the government and formed a ruling coalition and brought forward the debate on changing the electoral system through constitutional amendment. ; "The current constitution and laws do not prevent any political party from getting a 50 percent majority." Tell us which article of the constitution and which section of the law prevents it,' he said, 'which section prevented a party from getting 10 million votes when there were 11 million votes? You can't go to the people, you can't understand the people, you can provoke the people by talking and saying that the system is absurd or not?'

Thapalia recalled that out of the eight elections (2015, 2048, 2051, 2056, 2064, 2070, 2074 and 2079) held in Nepal under the multi-party system, the parliament did not complete its term in four elections in which one party won the majority. Out of the eight multi-party elections, no party had a majority in the Parliament in 2015, 2048, 2056 and 2074. In 2074, it should be said that one party had the majority because it was us who made it right to have one party. What is the age of the parliament with four times the majority of one party ? No one's life span was cut by 3 years . In the remaining four elections, one party did not have a majority, all the parliaments passed full time,' Thapalia asked, 'What is stability ? Stability means quick death ? Stagnation is the accidental dissolution of Parliament ? Parliament with a single majority of political parties has always returned to Chilim.' While debating that stability is achieved when one political party brings a majority in the parliament, should it be confirmed by previous practices and behavior or not? Thapalia said that the question would arise. 

He said that he heard that the political parties made a public statement saying that there was no stability and empowerment in the government and that there was no stability and empowerment in the government and change the election system. He said that he also heard the question that the election system has become expensive. He said that the issue of empowerment and stability of political parties will be addressed by the threshold and that will be addressed by the amendment in the election law. He also said that giving tickets to women in elections, representing minorities, tribals, tribals, Dalits, and Madhesi in the party is the right solution for reforming the inclusive system.

Thapalia said that when a leader dreams of changing the election system at night, debates are based on that. Where, by whom, by what study, what are the weaknesses of the current electoral system, what will be improved if another system is introduced, where is the written document? I haven't been able to read,' Thaplia said, 'I had a dream about changing the system at night, and I coughed in the morning, and what is the compulsion to accept it ? Any subject should be confirmed, study should be done.' He clarified that the commission's opinion is that it is quick to change the electoral system without adequate study, full implementation of the current system and reform of the law, what will happen if the new system is adopted, and where will the overall government form and system be taken. Thapalia said that the political parties are creating wrong commentary and spreading confusion in the society regarding the

election system. It is a false statement that due to the election system, the election has become expensive, our country has not prospered, developed, or stabilized. We should not even make such a commentary. In most places, a wrong comment has been made that the inclusive system did not lead,' he said. Act,  Mentioning that the problems seen in the election system can be solved by amending the rules, Thapalia said that this has not happened. 'Frequent change of system is not considered good elsewhere . In the United States, when the constitution was made in 1088, the electoral system remained the same, in the UK, the system has never changed, in India, the same system has been in place since the constitution was issued, and in Japan, there is a single system . It seems that we are focused on changing the system without being able to change the trend,' Thapalia said. Thapalia also said that voters should not be blamed for the cost of the

election system. He said that political parties and candidates make elections expensive and blame voters. "Whoever has built this country, the poor, the peasants, the workers who live in the village can be accused of being voters who sell the sovereign power ? It is rumored to be run by limited political middlemen. It is only a transparent cover brought by political parties and candidates to cover up their incompetence,' he said.

Chief Election Commissioner Thapalia has recalled that while there is a public debate about the need to amend the constitution and change the election system, the political party's neglect of the amendments to the law to reform the election. Stating that there are currently 9 laws related to elections, he complained that political parties and the government did not get support when the commission proceeded with the conclusion that they should be unified and made into three. It takes 22 months to reach the Council of Ministers from the Ministry of Home Affairs, that is, it takes 22 months to get from the Ministry of Home Affairs to the Council of Ministers. How many days will it take to reach Baneshwar (Parliament House)? Or will it be easier after moving the Parliament building to the neighborhood (behind the Ministry of Home Affairs)? How many years will it take to reach all over the country from there?,' Thapalia said, 'Therefore, we have to find out whether the subject of election reform is lip service or reality.'

Political party leaders and parliamentarians promised to reform the current system by amending the Election Act, but Thapalia mentioned that they themselves did not move ahead with the Act when they became home ministers . Even now, Ramesh Sekhar, who is actively participating in the debate on the amendment of the Election Act from the Congress, said that he believes that the bill will go ahead as he is the home minister.

He said that the Election Act should be amended. How to allow foreign voters to vote? What percentage threshold to keep ? How to directly make women candidates? How to make direct election system more inclusive? Thapalia said that the answer to the question is in the Election Act, which the government is holding back. To remove the proportional election system, the Commission said that they could not say anything. If direct is included, the percentage of proportional and direct can be increased. The commission does not say that we should remove proportionality . Proportionality is a great achievement now . Our democracy is an inclusive democracy,' he said, 'No law can be made without inclusiveness. We feel accused of being a bit more inclusive, we think this law, but we say it should be.'