With the submission of the closed list for the proportional representation (PR) for the elections to be held on 21 Falgun, the parties have faced public debate and criticism. This debate and criticism is not temporary or targeted only at a particular party. Rather, it is a natural and moral question raised about the inclusive democratic project envisioned by Nepal's Constitution.

The Preamble of the Constitution clearly enshrines social justice, inclusiveness, equal participation and the end of discrimination as the fundamental values ​​of democracy. Proportional representation is also an institutional expression of this constitutional essence – a special arrangement to ensure meaningful participation of historically marginalized, voiceless and power-excluded communities in all structures of the state.

The practice of proportional representation 

is gradually deviating from its original purpose and is transforming into an alternative gateway for those with access, influence, economic-commercial status and popularity. This situation is not just a weakness of constitutional practice, it is a sign of a serious erosion of democratic ethics and institutional indifference towards social justice.

The ideal of the Constitution, inclusiveness and representation

The concept of proportional inclusion is the product of a historical effort to bring economically, socially, culturally and politically excluded communities at the bottom of society into the mainstream of the state. Its goal is not only to ensure numerical presence, but also to establish the direct impact of their voice, experience, pain and concerns at the policy level.

The spirit of inclusive representation guaranteed by Articles 42 and 84 of the Constitution of Nepal is that the state is not the property of any limited class, caste, region or identity. It is a shared structure of all diversity.

The essence of inclusive representation is to restructure the balance of power in the decision-making process. When representation is limited to mere symbolic presence and the actual decision-making process remains guided by the same old power relations, then inclusiveness begins to lose its meaning and relevance. Therefore, the real test of inclusive democracy lies not in the diversity of faces, but in the redistribution of power, resources and decision-making rights.

Behavior and deviation

The weaknesses in preparing the proportional list have exposed the constitutional deviation. The presence of established artists, influential people on social media, financially powerful people, people directly involved in business interests and those with strong political access and connections is not a coincidence.

This is a structural manifestation of ‘elite capture’ – where a system built for social justice itself becomes a means of reproducing privilege, networks and status. The debate against ‘Nepo Baby’ and ‘Nepo Kids’ that arose in the backdrop of the Gen-G movement raised questions about the unequal structure of political succession, hereditary benefits, and access.

But ignoring this awareness and resistance, the repetition of the same trend in the proportional list is proof that the commitment of the so-called new and alternative political parties to inclusive democracy is limited only to speeches and manifestos.

Marginal geography and devaluation of federalism

The serious aspect is the absence of clear and strong faces representing historically neglected, structurally backward regions like Karnali and the Far West. This is not just a question of regional imbalance, it is a direct attack on the core essence of federalism. Federalism is a system adopted to maintain a balance of power between the center and the provinces, and to institutionalize geographical and social diversity in the state structure.

But when marginal geographies within the federal structure are deprived of representation, then federalism becomes limited to a paper concept. The question of representation here is not ‘who is famous’, but whose life experience, geographical reality, marginal distance from the state, and social outcry find their way to the center of policymaking.

Popularity, Politics, and Democratic Illusion

Another dangerous discourse that is deepening in our society is the belief that the ultimate destination of popularity is politics. This notion is not just a temporary problem for democracy, but a toxic mindset in the long run. When politics is supposed to be a means of social transformation, it is starting to be understood as the ultimate forum for personal brand building, visibility, and popularity management, which is a loss to democratic values.

What is worrying is that this trend is also seen in groups and individuals claiming to be ‘alternative political power’. Preferring famous faces, social media influence, and momentary popularity over ideas, philosophy, ideological clarity, and structural perspectives is a new version of the old political culture in the name of alternatives.

Inclusivity: Face change or structural transformation?

Proportional inclusivity is not a tool for political favors, party management, or face-decorating. It is the right to justice guaranteed by the Constitution. The aim is not just to change the identity of the representative, but to restructure political culture, decision-making processes and power relations.

If people with disabilities, gender and sexual minorities, ethno-culturally marginalized communities and geographically neglected areas are still waiting for representation, then we must accept the harsh truth that the constitution is not being implemented in practice. Inclusive democracy is possible only when representation can transform lived experience, social reality and structural inequalities into policy decisions.

Democratic courage and responsibility

Ultimately, the question is not ‘who got how many seats’. It is whose voices reached the center of policymaking. When the proportional system becomes a safe ladder for the powerful instead of a bridge for the voiceless, then democracy deviates from the practice of representation and is limited to the reproduction of inequality.