In Nepal's federal democratic system, the position of MP is the vote and trust of the people. And, this is the highest responsibility given by the constitution. Parliament is an institution that conveys the voice of the people to the state government, not a place to rubber-stamp the decisions of party leaders.

However, the current reality is asking an uncomfortable question – are our MPs truly representatives of the people or the personal choices of the party’s top leaders?

Article 84 of the Constitution of Nepal has determined two clear paths to the formation of the House of Representatives or the federal parliament. First, direct elections – where voters choose their own representatives. Second, the proportional inclusive system, the main objective of which is to bring women, Dalits, indigenous-tribal tribes, Madhesi, Tharu, Muslims and other marginalized communities, who have been excluded from state power for centuries, to the center of the power structure. The proportional system is not a ‘backdoor entry’, but rather a constitutional tool of social justice. However, today, the same tool is being shamelessly used by parties.

The proportional list, instead of being a document that carries the spirit of the constitution, has become a document for intra-party bargaining, internal power balance and management of nepotism. The proportional representation system has become an easy door for the economically powerful class, the leader's entourage, and even celebrities to enter parliament in the name of those who have shown loyalty to the party for a long time, while the real marginalized communities are once again outside.

The 2046, 2062-63 movements and the 'Gen-G' discontent seen in recent years had constantly warned the political system that the lack of representation and accountability is dangerous. However, looking at the proportional representation list, one feels that the spirit of all those movements has been made a cruel joke. As if the history of the Parliament building itself being burned as a symbol of public anger has been forgotten, even the new parties formed under the guise of the same discontent are proving to be the roots of the old Dang. Old trends in the name of change - this is the irony of today!

The responsibility of proportional representation MPs is even heavier. Because they reach parliament not through direct votes, but through special provisions of the constitution. Therefore, they have to play a responsible role in policy-making, law-making processes, government formation and operation, and also have to closely monitor the government. However, when the selection of MPs is done with wrong motives, the parliament cannot stand on the side of the people. As a result, the federal parliament is gradually becoming limited to an institution that approves the decisions of the top leaders of the parties.

This problem is not only for the ‘old’ parties. New parties have also missed the opportunity to improve proportional representation. Even the forces that came with the slogan of ‘different politics’ adopted the same old criteria when making lists, i.e. access within the party, financial contributions or proximity to the leadership. This sent a clear message – the problem is not in the face, but in the structure. And, improving the structure requires political will, which is lacking.

The names on the proportional list that have been made public now, except occasionally, mostly appear to be people with resources, who have held positions of benefit and who have no shortage of opportunities. And, this is not the essence of proportional-inclusiveness. Do people who enter politics for a while for the sake of opportunity always stay in politics? A serious question remains.

The proportional system itself is not to blame. The fault lies in its misuse. The Constitution has clarified the essence of quotas, percentages and community representation to ensure inclusiveness. However, at the implementation level, the tendency of parties not to make the list public, keeping the criteria unclear and focusing the final decision on a few limited individuals has made the system opaque. As a result, public trust in federalism is eroding.

Now the question cannot be avoided – should the proportional system be improved or should it be continuously distorted? The ways for improvement are clear. First, clear, public and measurable criteria should be set while preparing the proportional list. Second, priority should be given to real representatives within the community (people with struggle, contribution and social roots). Third, we should strengthen internal democracy within the party and ensure transparency and accountability in the list selection process. Fourth, we should start the practice of publicly evaluating their performance after becoming MPs.

If political parties do not introspect, do not understand the essence of the constitution or ignore it even after understanding it, they will pay the price by losing the trust of the people. Federalism is not the mercy of any party, but the product of a people's movement. Democracy is not a 'seasonal' slogan, but a continuous practice. And, Parliament is not the office of any party, but the supreme place of the people.