One of the important features of the Constitution of Nepal is the proportional participation of people of all genders, classes, castes, regions, religions, and communities. Therefore, the phrase 'proportional representation' has been repeatedly used in the Preamble of the Constitution itself.

Its main objective is to mainstream people who have been marginalized for centuries due to the discriminatory thinking and policies of society and the state by involving them in the policy formulation and implementation of the state. It is also to provide and make them feel equality, justice, and belonging to the state. By imbibing this belief and essence, the constitution has made provision for parties to make one-third of their members of parliament female in the federal parliament and provincial assemblies.

With this, the representation of women in parliament has been around 33 percent. However, why did the Election Commission issue instructions to political parties to ensure at least 33 percent of women candidates even under the first-past-the-post, or so-called direct, electoral system?

Why don't parties trust women as candidates in direct elections? Or, in the current situation, women themselves are reluctant to go directly as much as possible, considering proportional representation a little easier? Why did rights activists, the media, and conscious groups become interested and concerned about how to make more women candidates in direct elections than in the entire parliament? There is a discussion and debate on this issue. This article will discuss this issue in its entirety.

In the election to the 275-member House of Representatives, there is a provision for 165 (60 percent) direct elections and 110 (40 percent) seats to be elected through the proportional voting system (selected from the list submitted by the party to the Election Commission based on the votes received in the name of the party from across the country).

According to the Commission's statistics, out of the 3,483 candidates in the direct election, 395 (11.34) are women and 3,088 (88.66) are men. Out of those 11.34 percent total women, 58.48 are from within the party and the remaining 41.52 percent are in the race as independent candidates. Similarly, in the proportional election, only 22 parties have fielded candidates for all 110 seats, of which 946 are Khas-Arya, 911 Janajati, 502 Madhesi, 425 Dalit, 148 Muslims and 203 Tharu.

Looking at the data in terms of gender, a total of 3,135 candidates, 1,772 (56.52) women and 1,363 (43.48) men, are listed. In this way, male candidacies are 77.32 more in direct elections and 13.04 more in proportional elections. The question arises here, why do parties that appear quite liberal in proportional elections from a gender perspective appear extremely narrow in direct elections? When the entire nation is being polarized in terms of parties, almost half (41.52) of women have registered as independent candidates, how much basis does the statement that ‘women themselves do not want to compete in direct elections’ have?

The status and history of women’s competition within the party. Among the main parties competing in all seats in direct elections, the Congress has fielded women candidates in 11, UML in 10, NCP in 12 and RSVP in 16 seats, making the parties’ view of women, who constitute more than half of the population, clear. The mainstream political parties (Congress-Communist) and the RPP and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) that criticize them and promote themselves as the alternative have fielded only 6 and 9 percent of women from their parties for the contest, respectively.

In 2074 and 2079 BS, general elections were also held, with a total of 144 and 225 women running for office. Of these, 6 and 9 were elected, respectively. In addition, there is an argument that the proportional election basis was adopted rather than the direct one to pave the way for many of those who want to do mainstream politics to enter parliament more easily rather than facing the risk of defeat or victory in their constituencies. This is a continuation of the old mentality and strategy of discouraging the shaky leadership, removing them from the politics of parliamentary competition, and helping to create a narrative that they are weak. This seems to play a role in proving the established narrative that women cannot be competitive, appear unsuccessful, shrink, and do not win.

In a situation where the influence and access to power structures within and outside the party of the individual and the influence of the residents of the constituency are becoming the main basis for voting, voters are not in a position to believe and win if women from marginalized groups who have not been able to build social capital and networks suddenly enter the competition. In the current situation where winning is considered a political feat, winning at any cost and doing anything to win, women are not considered worthy.

In addition, when a lot of money has to be spent on election campaigning and creating an atmosphere, and mobilizing one's own workers is proving to be very expensive, direct elections are like making women chew on iron jaws when they have not been able to exercise their right to spend even though they have the right to property. However, sending a limited number of women who have received tickets to areas that are considered unsafe for their party and putting many of them forward to compete with influential and top leadership has raised additional questions. It seems that this is a strategic goal of achieving little or no in terms of women's participation.

For example, 3 out of 11 Nepali Congress leaders like Meena, Mandhara and Kusum are competing with the top candidates Ravi, KP-Balendra and Pushpa Kamal, who are ready to do anything for their victory and are in a race to win. Similarly, Congress President Gagan Thapa is being contested by Rinku Devi of the Aam Janata Dal, and Poonam Devi of the CPN is being contested by Aam Janata Chairman Prabhu Sah, and former Speaker and UML candidate Devraj Ghimire is being contested by former Deputy Speaker and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh candidate Indira in Jhapa. Even though women are being given less opportunities in each constituency, women who get opportunities and dare to compete with the top candidates often lose anonymously to established men. Chitwan's Meena has been seen as an exception this time in terms of discussion.

Women-women competition in itself is not bad, but when ticket givers pit two established women who could win on both sides against each other as if there were no other constituency, one of the most powerful women is automatically eliminated, as is seen in the case of the CPN-Renu-Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh Sovita in Chitwan. The aforementioned incidents of candidacy are a continuation of the old mindset and strategy of discouraging women's leadership, removing them from the politics of parliamentary competition, and helping to create a narrative that they are weak. This seems to play a role in proving the established narrative that women cannot be competitive, appear unsuccessful, shrink, and do not win.

Corrupt practices and confusion in proportional representation

There are at least three types of confusion in Nepal regarding proportional representation. One, it is becoming difficult to consider all castes, classes, religions, communities, and regions, including Khas-Arya, as prescribed by the constitution. The shadow of a few elite women who entered the government based on influence fell on all women coming from the proportional quota. A narrative was created to look down on them and defame them as the result of bargaining for pockets, love, and money, which not only weakened women's confidence, but also jeopardized their credibility.

Second, the system of selecting marginalized and ground women among the marginalized is proportional, which not only directly but also provides opportunities to those who cannot be elected by competing with women from their own group who have already had opportunities. Comparing those who have made politics a profession and have already managed to disrupt and manipulate the structure by coming directly from wage laborers, shepherds, farmers, and housewives to the parliament and assembly is not natural.

But it is a fact that in the past, some women who came from proportional representation were belittled by using formal education, Nepali language, dress code, etc. as standards, trolled and underestimated, and questioned about their abilities. In this way, an attempt was made to reject social diversity and pluralism. Because they came to politics from different backgrounds, it is natural for some of them to hesitate to speak, to not grasp the language sought by others, to not be sophisticated and logical, and not to hear things clearly. A structure should have been created and developed to listen to their experiences and expectations, to mold them into a structure, and to take them to the process for addressing them, but it was not done. The narrow behavior, understanding, and interpretation of ignoring the fraudulent maneuvers carried out by the parties during the selection process through proportional quota, seeing merit in those misused by the elite and the elite, not calling it corruption, but linking the selection based on the constitution and public opinion with personal matters such as character, personality, and relationships, has made proportional representation disrespectful at the public level.

Third, the narrow behavior, understanding, and interpretation of ignoring the deceitful maneuvers carried out by the parties in the process of selecting from proportional quotas, seeing merit in those misused by the elite and the elite, not calling it corruption, but linking the selection that is in accordance with the constitution and based on public opinion with personal matters such as character, personality, and relationships, has made proportional representation disrespectful at the public level.

Instead of making structural reforms at the required level to increase the credibility of that system, there was a trend of selecting people from the relevant community and making them conform to the rules. In other words, even though proportional representation itself was the election, rather than considering who, why and on what basis should be included in the list prepared for it, the profit and loss of the leadership, their group and organization were calculated.

Such a practice has weakened the morale of the MPs on that list who are elected based on the votes given by the citizens. In the case of proportional representation MPs who are elected based on the public opinion after contesting the election, the parties' opaque candidate selection and the attitude of not working to correct the wrong statements have established another type of exploitation and injustice against women who have won and entered parliament from within the list. It was hoped that the so-called new parties would take the initiative to start the reform through candidate selection. However, they appeared to be even more opaque and unaccountable. Which seems to have added to the disappointment. Those who have established themselves in a profession and made a name for themselves, earned money and fame 

The current proportional list, which is selected by those who have increased their 'fan followers', is said to be a manipulation of money, even more so for the so-called new ones. There are many examples of new party lists that have surpassed the old ones in terms of opacity, even ignoring the results of internal voting within their own party.

The question arises, with the development of new technologies, how helpful will these technologies be in the issue of women? Currently, public trust in popular culture, the competition in the skills of creating short content and the use of technology, the flood of false information, the takeover of AI and algorithms, fake IDs and cyber group operations are widespread. It is difficult for women who are unfamiliar with all these things, less familiar with them and not accustomed to them, to put themselves in competition with the public. In this situation where it is impossible to compete even with a lot of money, the situation is even more surprising that a handful of women who can shake and shake the power have moved forward by grabbing and occupying the opportunities of women from the target group instead of competing directly by occupying the proportional quota. 

It seems that competitive women who can ask questions, seek results, and show their strength are not counted as a desire for leadership, but as a challenge. Due to the fact that the leadership dominates in the preparation of the proportional list and even in the selection of MPs, they can work according to the will of the main leadership and are not responsible for the people of a particular region/geography, those who are selected in this way bow down to the leadership. There is a situation where they do not believe that they are anyone without the leadership, they consider the leadership's thinking and security as their security or responsibility, and they do not form their own different or special thoughts but wait for orders.

Since the work of MPs has become more like that of development intermediaries than the creation of laws and regulations, there is a common psychology of viewing the proportional parliament as second-rate. The idea and acceptance that both the direct and proportional MPs have equal status and that they have voted on two ballot papers is rarely seen among both the voters themselves and those who became MPs through that vote. As a result, the MPs were not empowered, and instead of demanding the dignity, role, autonomy and sovereign exercise of the Parliament, and moving forward to fight for it, they are forced to sit and wait for instructions or whips and obey. Looking at the recent parliamentary activities and decision-making process, the leadership of the parliamentary party seemed like the boss, the whips were like the chiefs and the MPs were like the farmers.

The role of the party

It is basically the job of the political party to include and organize people from the lower strata of society through political recruitment, to inform them through political education and communication and to include them in various programs and make them active participants, and to make them competitive by providing opportunities and practice from the local level. The more aware and involved one is in politics, the more informed and empowered one will be. Proportional presence without empowerment is not considered essential participation. It seems that the low number of women voters, who outnumber men, is due to weak political awareness or apathy or something else. 

Marginalized groups, youth and women are also confined to fraternal organizations, and very few women have had opportunities in the main party. To establish an identity as a leader, it is necessary to initially provide opportunities in the main party, participate in competition, and be active in the work of the organization by providing roles and responsibilities. The inability to win the trust of the main leadership and the compulsion to spend time and energy on promoting the interests of the leadership rather than on the responsibilities received not only led the parties to decline, but also hindered the political awareness and leadership development of the cadres.

It was natural that its negative impact would also have an impact on the personality and political life of the leaders of the organization. Even when thinking about it, very few promising politicians come to mind, and among them, popular young leaders did not get a place, and even yesterday's famous young/female leaders put their reputation at stake in the pursuit of leadership. This is the result of this. The current situation of UML leader Usha Kiran, who is highly liked by the conscious society, and Ram Kumari, an icon of the second people's movement, clarifies many things.

Overall, due to the lack of encouragement and promotion of women to be active and dedicated in the party organization and the lack of equal opportunities, most women in the party ranks have not been able to create a position to intervene effectively in politics. It is also impossible to play an interventionist role without being immersed in politics. Since the leadership does not recognize those who work honestly in the villages, the people do not respect the leadership, and those who get opportunities are not accepted, the issue of proportional participation has become a victim of a counterproductive, divisive and apolitical vicious circle.