Since the history of Nepal, the government has been changed in a short period of time. During the 74 years since the end of the Rana rule and the establishment of democracy, there have been about 58 changes of government. This period from 2007 to February 2081 can be divided into four periods and the volatility can be studied.

Nine governments were formed in the nine years from 2007 to 2016, with an average lifespan of 12 months. In the 29 years from 2017 to 2046/47, 18 governments were formed and their average lifespan was 18 months. During the 15-year period from 2047 to 2062/63, 16 governments were formed and their tenure was only one year.

During the last 18 years from 2062/63 to 2081, 15 governments have been formed, with an average lifespan of 14 months. However, as the term of the current House of Representatives is still three years left, the life of the government may be longer in the last term.

In all the four periods there were different reasons for the instability of the government. At first, it was difficult for Rana Prime Minister to work in the changed environment. The monarchy, which was imprisoned in the palace, was also ambitious with full state power. Also, the struggle for leadership in the Congress, which gained democracy through armed revolution, was also a factor.

Overall, the lack of coordination during this period seems to be the root cause of instability. In the second section, the problem arose when the king tried to establish himself as more powerful and his sole role in the running of the state. Since the independent governance system was relatively easy, the life of the government was relatively long. Thirdly, the political parties were revived by the people's movement and although the authority of the king was somewhat reduced, due to the over-ambition of the party leaders, even the majority party in 2048 and 2056 was unable to provide a permanent government. Meanwhile, an armed conflict also broke out in the country. 

The second people's movement overthrew the monarchy, but the parties could not be honest in its implementation even though the government formed by the revolution created a blueprint for the country's future. It seems that instability has been created as the main objective is to monopolize power. Overall, in the last 74 years, from the king to the politicians, instead of making a 'country-making project', they made the country a 'power project' and made it a political weapon to keep themselves in power.

The Second People's Movement and the Interim Constitution, which introduced a new inclusive policy in the nation, were used for party interests and political interests. Perhaps the party leaders did not like to create a fully inclusive and federal democratic nation. As a result, the election of the Constituent Assembly was held twice. The new constitution was not made with the inner heart or only with outward appearance. As a result no one was sincere towards the implementation of the constitution. 

The old flavor of the monarchy made democracy a mask and instead of the public interest, the democratic system has been serving party and self-interest. Periodic elections are the basis of democratic system. Through which people choose their representatives for democratic governance. The soul of democracy is representation, which must be real. That is, there should be a choice of representation of the people at all costs, whom the voters consider to be their representatives. Representation of non-citizens is only superficial and undermines democracy.

We adopted the system of 'first to be elected' in the first parliamentary elections in 2015. Congress got two-thirds majority in it. Democracy was restored in 2047 and the new constitution also adopted the old electoral system. Under this system, the elections of the House of Representatives in 2051 and 2056 were held respectively. This system is simple and easy because only the candidate who gets the most votes wins. The winner does not need to bring a majority.

It is also called direct election system. Because, the voters get to know the candidate directly. Under this system, it is easy to form a government, but the representatives who do not get the majority do not represent the majority in the parliament. The party in power with 35-40 percent votes forms the government and runs the government easily, but 60-65 percent of the voters are not represented in the House.

Also, this does not protect the representation of all castes, languages, religions and cultures, so we adopted a mixed parallel electoral system in the interim constitution of 2063, in which we partially ensured proportional representation. Under the proportional system, 60 percent of the seats and 40 percent of the seats were reserved for the first-come, first-served. But In the constitution of Nepal issued in 2072, the system of the interim constitution was reversed, i.e. 40% was placed towards the proportional system and 60% was placed towards the first to be elected. According to this, parliamentary elections were held in 2074 and 2079.

54 parties participated in the first Constituent Assembly election and only 25 of them were represented in the Constituent Assembly. Out of 122 parties participating in the second Constituent Assembly election, only 30 parties managed to get their representation in the proportional section. In other words, in the first Constituent Assembly election, 29 parties could not pass the proportional threshold.

because parties receive the total national vote proportionally to the number of seats they receive. Such a vote limit is called the natural limit, and the new constitution formally set the limit at 3 percent. According to this, out of the 12 winning parties in the 2074 election, only 5 parties got proportional representation. Even in the 2079 election, only 7 out of 12 parties managed to get proportional representation.

Voting for representation occurs in all electoral systems. As in a first-come, first-served system, only the candidate with the highest number of votes wins. Similarly, in the majority system, the candidate with the majority of the winning candidates wins. Similarly, in a proportional electoral system, in order to gain representation, parties and not candidates must receive votes up to a proportional threshold. Proportional systems, which are used in most democratic countries, have different percentages for each country. This limit is found to be from 0.67 percent to 10 percent.

In any country, the party that has won 1 or 2 seats under the majority system, that party also gets proportional representation based on its national vote. The biggest shortcoming of the proportional voting limit is that the votes outside the voting limit become unrepresentative, i.e. those votes are wasted, they are not valued by the voters.

The national census of 2078 shows that there are 142 castes, 124 languages ​​and 10 religions living in Nepal. Ensuring representation and especially proportional representation in such a diverse country is also a very difficult task. The world's 'mixed parallel system', which we also embrace, has 29 to 71 per cent seats for proportional representation and first-past-the-post systems, and 46 to 54 per cent for first-past-the-post systems.

One fact about the votes cast in both these categories is that voters prefer to vote more for the candidate who gets elected first, while they are relatively less interested in the proportional category. Proportionate candidates are determined according to the list of candidates. The second important thing is that in the case of direct candidates try to get more votes at the individual level anyway by fair or unfair means, while proportional candidates do not make their personal efforts for more votes.

This fact has been confirmed by past election results. In the first Constituent Assembly election, Nepali Congress got 22.69 lakh votes on the proportional side and 23.18 lakh votes on the direct side. UML got 21.83 lakh votes in proportional and 22.29 lakh in direct. Similarly, Maoist got 31.44 lakh votes in proportional and 31.45 lakh votes in direct.

Similarly, in the second Constituent Assembly election, Congress got 24.18 lakh votes proportionally and 27.94 lakh direct votes, UML got 22.34 lakh proportional and 24.10 lakh direct votes and Maoist got 14.39 lakh proportional and 16.09 lakh direct votes. The reason for the decrease in the number of representation of the parties is also the decrease in their proportional votes. 

Among the two major parties in the government for a stable government, the Congress is talking about not having proportional representation for the House of Representatives, while the UMA is raising the issue of increasing proportional representation from 3 to 5 percent. The sad thing is that the parties do not make their leaders introspect.

Because of this, it seems that 4/5 times the competition to become the prime minister is going on among the leaders. One of the main reasons for the instability of the government in the country is the ambition and never-ending hunger of the leaders to become the prime minister. The culture of sole rule is also added as an auxiliary reason.

With the mixed election system we have adopted, the possibility of a majority MP of one party being elected to the House of Representatives is very low. Therefore, the parties should be able to run the state through mutual discussion in the interest of the nation. The solution is neither to remove the proportional system, nor to raise the proportional tax.

As long as two or three parties are proportionally popular in the country, there is no alternative to a coalition government. The option of reducing the number of national parties from 5 or 7 is also not a democratic idea because the parties represent different types of society, political thinking, different regions, languages ​​and cultures.