It was thought that the working style of the parties would improve after the upheaval of the movement. But the list submitted by the parties to the commission does not give it strength. Instead, it seems that the new parties are also learning from the weaknesses of the old ones. They also did not seem to be able to abandon nepotism.
We use Google Cloud Translation Services. Google requires we provide the following disclaimer relating to use of this service:
This service may contain translations powered by Google. Google disclaims all warranties related to the translations, expressed or implied, including any warranties of accuracy, reliability, and any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and noninfringement.
The series of abuses of the proportional representation system has continued. The parties have insulted the system itself through the closed lists submitted to the Election Commission on Sunday and Monday. It seems that the parties have prepared the lists in a way that establishes the dominance of those with access. Top leaders themselves, leaders who have repeatedly benefited from political benefits, and their relatives have received priority.
Looking at the list of parties, it seems that the proportional system is an attempt to bring the classes and communities into the political mainstream through the parliament, which is exactly the opposite of what was adopted.
Therefore, the proportional list itself is being criticized for being incoherent from a geographical, community and class perspective. Firstly, this further distorts and discredits the practice of the proportional system. Secondly, the expectation that people like this will reach the parliament through this system is also fragmented.
This is not to say that successful people in various sectors of society should not go to parliament. But when forming an opinion on this issue, the concept of the proportional system should be clear. This system is to facilitate the mainstreaming of the voices of communities and classes whose voices the state does not regularly hear but must be heard.
It is to reflect the diversity of society in the law and policy-making organs of the state. It is not to create more opportunities for groups that have already had opportunities time and again. But the same thing is happening in every election, which should not have happened. Because, the parties are showing a tendency to keep some names of marginalized communities in a representative manner but give opportunities to those who are fundamentally influential.
The parties submitted their closed lists to the Election Commission on Sunday and Monday for the elections to be held on 21 Falgun. But they have rejected the criticism they have received in the past and the aspirations expressed by the people after the recent Gen-G movement. They have not shown any interest in reforms. What is strange is that the opinion of all the parties, old and new, is the same. For example, Arjun Narsingh KC, who has been contesting elections and becoming a minister since the Panchayat period, has been placed at number one in the Khas Arya ‘cluster’ from the Congress.
Ministers Bhimsen Das Pradhan and Romi Gauchan Thakali have also been included in the proportional representation. UML Vice President Ram Bahadur Thapa, who has also been the Minister of Defense, Home Affairs and a member of the Constituent Assembly and the National Assembly, has been placed at number one in the Adivasi/Janajati ‘cluster’. Former UML Vice President Guru Baral is on the first list of Khas Arya. UML Secretary, former minister and former MP Padma Aryal is also at number one on the list of women.
The influence of those with access is also seen in the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Moreover, although a 'primary election' was held to select proportional candidates in this party, dissatisfaction has increased within the party due to the lack of selection and ranking of candidates according to the results of the vote. A close examination of the lists submitted by all parties to the commission shows a common picture - those who have already become MPs or ministers or those who are influential in different fields have been given priority. This issue is more related to trends than individuals.
The fact that those who have reached the highest levels of the party and have repeatedly become MPs and ministers must reach parliament even through the proportional system is not confirmed by rational logic. In addition, those who have gained access to various professions and businesses also have no difficulty in raising their voices on the demands and issues of their field or on matters of public concern. The organs of society and the state continue to listen to them. They are invited to debates and discussions as stakeholders.
There is always a citizen expectation that the parties should improve. After the Gen-G movement, there was a pressure from all sides for improvement. The movement itself was a result of dissatisfaction created by the arbitrary and arrogant style of the parties. It was thought that the working style of the parties would improve after the turmoil of the movement. But the list submitted by the parties to the commission does not give it strength.
On the contrary, it seems that the new parties are also learning the weaknesses of the old parties. They also did not seem to be able to abandon nepotism. There are some ways to stop this distortion. First, the already influential people, for whom it is explained that this system is not for them, should themselves realize that they are trying to usurp someone else's path by being elected through proportional representation.
They should withdraw their names and express their conscience. Second, the citizen should create pressure on the parties. Third, the parties themselves should realize the weaknesses they have created. And, the weaknesses should be corrected by using the facilities provided by the election law and the commission.
