The decades-long struggle of Nepali politics and the historic people's movement of 2062/63 had one main message - to make the state inclusive and bring the citizens at the grassroots to the center of the decision-making process. To make this resolve a reality, the proportional representation system was also adopted from the first Constituent Assembly election held in 2064.

This system should have been that beautiful and transparent mirror of democracy, where the diverse social structure of the country and the marginalized community can find their own faces reflected.

However, when reviewing the decade-and-a-half-long journey of practice, this system, instead of becoming the voice of the marginalized in accordance with its original essence, has become a place to manage the limited powerful characters of the party. It has become a means of adjusting the arithmetic of seats for power politics. Isn't this sacred slogan of inclusion being used today to fulfill the interests of the privileged rather than for the upliftment of the real oppressed? This serious question is simultaneously shaking the minds of the common citizen and the parliamentary dignity of the country today.

Constitutional basis

The Constitution of Nepal has adopted a 'mixed electoral system' in the formation of the Federal Parliament and the Provincial Assemblies. Article 84 of the Constitution provides for 110 members, or 40 percent of the 275, to be elected through the proportional system, while Article 176 ensures that 40 percent of the members of the Provincial Assembly will be elected through the same method. Its main objective was to implement the ‘right to social justice’ mentioned in Article 42 of the Constitution, where economically and socially backward communities are guaranteed participation in state bodies based on the principle of proportional inclusion.

The law has fixed a certain percentage (cluster) for indigenous peoples, Khas Aryas, Tharus, Dalits, Madhesis and Muslims. It is because of this system that 33 percent of women’s presence in Nepal’s parliament has been possible today. However, it is too late to conduct a deep review of whether this pattern of inclusion has been able to bear the burden of real emancipation and representation of the target group. Because, numerical presence alone does not guarantee meaningful representation, if the character of representation is wrong, what more can be expected?

Gap between theory and practice

Nepal's political parties have misused this dignified system of inclusion as an 'alternative way to fulfill their own interests' and a tool to 'protect the power center', resulting in serious deviations in practice. The closed list of proportional representation is increasingly controlled by the families, relatives and influential classes of the party's top leadership instead of the truly oppressed and marginalized. This trend of making members of one's own family or close associates MPs in the name of inclusion is fostering a new type of feudalism under the guise of democracy. This has created an ironic situation where only the privileged enjoy the opportunities that come in the name of the community and the real victims always remain empty-handed.

In addition, in recent elections, there have been serious allegations that proportional representation seats have become a means of 'economic transactions', which has seriously attacked parliamentary values. The fact that people without political backgrounds but connected to big business families have entered the legislature under the guise of clusters has increased the direct interference of vested interests in the policymaking arena. This has created the risk of laws protecting the commercial interests of a certain class rather than the interests of the general public.

Similarly, the act of inducting leaders who were rejected by the people in direct elections into parliament through the proportional list has made a mockery of democratic methods. Misusing the proportional inclusion system and bringing a person who has been clearly rejected by the public opinion back to the place of state policy-making is not only an insult to the conscience of the voters, but also a major blow to the integrity and public trust of the entire parliamentary system.

Proposals for structural reforms

The permanent remedy for the serious deviations seen in this system is certainly not abolition, but rather its structural reforms and subtle modifications to ensure representation of everyone in the state. It is now imperative to take some bold and policy-level steps for reform.

As the first and mandatory reform, there should be a clear legal provision prohibiting the creamy layer even within ethnic and community clusters. Those whose families have already reached high positions, who are educationally and financially capable, or who belong to the urban privileged class, should be excluded from the proportional list. The state must end the practice of always getting the benefits of inclusion only to the marginalized and guarantee that opportunities reach the hands of the real oppressed living at the bottom.

As a second important step, a constitutional or legal provision should be made that a person can be a public representative only for a maximum of one term in his life through proportional quota. Giving more than one opportunity means closing the door to new and qualified faces and maintaining a political monopoly. If a person wants to go to parliament for the second time, he must necessarily show the courage to contest direct elections and come with public approval, which will ensure the arrival of a new generation in leadership.

Finally, along with ethnic clusters, backward areas and economic deprivation should be made the main basis of proportional representation. ‘Progressive’ that prioritizes the most remote and deprived citizens within the community

The ‘selection’ system should be implemented. This will not limit inclusion to just ethnic representation but will lead to real social justice and upliftment of the target group, thereby re-establishing public trust in the system.

The proportional electoral system is an essential requirement for Nepal’s unique socio-political structure. It has played a major role in creating a sense that the state is ours and strengthening national unity. However, the flaws in the intentions and style of the parties using it are discrediting this system. Inclusion is not a place to manage the relatives of leaders or rich businessmen, it is a means of providing respectful access to the real oppressed and marginalized citizens at the main gate of the state and making their voices heard.