There are many references available to understand how parties and candidates engage in arbitrary, false, and deceptive practices in elections. One such reference is the arbitrary manipulation of the closed list of candidates submitted by parties for the proportional representation system.

The parties have misused the facility with positive intentions to correct the general errors in the list of names submitted at the beginning. They have forced the parties to comply with the rules rather than correcting the errors and improving the list. The Election Commission, which is responsible for disciplining the parties, has also become a helper. This shows the tendency of the parties, who are the players in the election, to violate the rules and laws even before entering the competition, and the supportive role of the Commission, which is the referee.

This is a step to make the election process controversial and criticized. When the election is not established as a fair competition according to the rules and procedures, it also makes the results controversial. It weakens democracy. Therefore, the Commission and all the parties should express a commitment not to violate the rules and laws in this election and the upcoming elections.

63 political parties have entered the competition towards the proportional system with a single election symbol on their own and collectively. According to the final list made public by the Commission, 3,135 candidates have been selected for the proportional system.

For that, the parties submitted their closed lists on 13 and 14 Poush. The commission then followed a schedule of investigating and informing candidates to correct their names, withdrawing their names if they wanted, giving parties an opportunity to fill in the blanks, making the closed list public, receiving objections, removing names as needed, and publishing the final closed list.

Accordingly, the final closed list was made public on Tuesday. The election schedule only provides an opportunity to correct errors in the list. However, parties have changed names in a large number. Even though candidates have not formally withdrawn their names, it has been found that the parties themselves have submitted new names arbitrarily. The National Independent Party, Nepali Communist Party, Janmat Party, Congress, and UML, among others, have been found to have changed their names.

Two candidates whose names were on the closed list submitted by the Rashtriya Swatantra Party withdrew their names on 10 December. But the Rashtriya Swatantra Party itself has removed the names of 36 others from the previous list. The names of Pancha Singh, Sita Dahal, Jayanand Karki Rawal, Yamuna Guragain, Jitendra Dahal, Kisun Mandal and Abhimanyu Yadav, who were in the initial list of the Nepali Communist Party, seem to have been removed.

The name of Sanjha Poudel has been removed from the closed list submitted to the commission by the Congress. The names of those who have withdrawn or not from the UML have been listed. The names of Hirusara Rana, Lal Bahadur Rawal, Duf Kumar Bastola, Anshu Singh, Sharmila Gurung, Leela Kumari Bhandari, Som Portel, Yom Bahadur Bishwakarma, Ekwal Miya have been replaced by Saraswati Rai, Mahadev Bhatta, Laxman Sharma, Saraswati Kumari, Smriti Tamang, Satyadevi Khadka, Tek Bahadur Sunuwar Ghatani, Pradeep Ramtel and Ejaz Alam. The RPP has also replaced the names of Pavitra Shrestha, Kalpana Magar, Gaumaya Shrestha and Tara Majhi from the closed list with Sanumaya Gharti (Tamang), Nirmala Shrestha, Bhavana Roka Magar and Shobharana Magar respectively.

The right to select candidates in the election belongs to the party. All this should be within the scope of the law and rules. But even though there is a legal provision that the party concerned is not allowed to change the names and order in the closed list, the commission has become flexible. Due to which the arbitrariness of the parties has increased. The party has even removed candidates who have not formally withdrawn their names.

This can create more chaos over time. During the two Constituent Assembly elections held in 2064 and 2070, the parties used to submit only the closed list of candidates for the proportional representation, and after the election results, they would select names from the list in their own way. After the 2074 election, it was said that this increased the chaos. However, after the 2074 election, a system was introduced to submit the closed list based on ‘clusters’ and select MPs according to its priority list.

It also improved the system to some extent. But the parties have been giving priority to candidates who they really want to make MPs but do not fall within the intention of the proportional system and making arbitrary changes. Even if the parties can be given freedom until the selection of candidates, we should be aware of the fact that the proportional system will be further discredited if unnatural changes are made.

Nepal's political system, process, competition or results have been weakened due to the arbitrariness of political parties and their leaders. For that, they have been criticized and have also suffered losses. But the current system is not a matter of profit or loss for any party or leader, but a matter related to the dignity of the constitution and the system. Only when it can be nurtured and expanded can the benefits be obtained from the system.

It may be difficult to enrich the arbitrary changes made by the parties in the proportional list in this election, but it should be debated for the coming days. First, the method for selecting direct and proportional candidates should be made clearer and more transparent legal provisions should be prepared. Like direct, proportional candidate lists can also be made public immediately, which will allow public monitoring of the list.

The period between submitting the preliminary list and publishing the final list can also be shortened. Or some other creative solution can be found. Second, the parties themselves must be responsible. The moral force that advocates good governance and transparency must be preserved. It must be realized that the future of democracy depends on the behavior of the parties themselves.