The list of direct candidates of the parties in the House of Representatives elections to be held on Thursday reveals one thing in common – how inclusive can the parties be if they are not forced by law. There is a mandatory legal provision that candidates from various ethnic groups must reach a certain percentage in the proportional representation, but since there is no such obligation in the direct representation, the list of candidates chosen by the parties at their own discretion appears to be very inclusive in terms of ethnicity and gender.

Nepal Madhesh Foundation has shown this by analyzing the equation of candidates from 10 traditional and emerging parties in the direct representation. It included candidates from Congress, UML, CPN, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Jaspa Nepal (JSP), RPP, Janmat, Nagarik Unmukti (Citizen Liberation Party), Ujjaj Nepal (Labor Culture Party), and Shram Sanskriti Party. Among them, the most nominated among women is the RSP, which has less than 10 percent. The RPP has the lowest 5 percent. That is, only five out of every hundred candidates are women. While the female population is more than 52 out of every 100 people. In the proportional representation, 50 percent candidacy is mandatory in the law.

Similarly, the representation of Khas-Aryas in the candidates of Congress, UML, CPN, RSP and RPP is seen to be higher in proportion to their population. RSP and RPP have the highest number of candidates from this ethnic group, which constitutes about 30 percent of the population in the country, with 62 percent. That is, more than double the proportion of their population. These two parties have reduced the number of indigenous people, Dalits, Tharus and Muslims to give more representation to men from the Khas-Arya community. These two parties have selected more Madhesi candidates in proportion to the population. While the Madhesi population is 16 percent, RSP has fielded 18 and RSP has fielded 20 percent candidates from the Madhesi community. Out of the 165 direct constituencies, Madhesh Province has 20 percent or 32 seats. The second largest number of voters after Bagmati is also in Madhesh, about 3.6 million.

Similarly, Congress has selected 56 percent of its candidates from the Khas-Aryan community, UML has selected 55 percent and NCP has also selected 48 percent from the Khas-Aryan community. Congress and UML have deprived all communities except Khas-Aryan of candidacy according to their population, while NCP has given candidacy according to their population to the indigenous and Tharu communities, and not to the rest.

It seems that other parties that consider their presence strong in various ethnic groups have given more than their share to the respective ethnic communities and have not paid attention to the representation of the rest of the communities. For example, JSP Nepal has given more than their share to both the Janajati and Madhesi communities. Citizen Liberation has done the same for the indigenous Janajati, Madhesi and Tharus. Janmat has given priority to the Madhesi and Tharus, Ujjaj Nepal to the indigenous Janajati and Madhesi, and Shram Sanskriti Party to the indigenous Janajati.

Dalits, Tharu and Muslim communities seem to be the most excluded. JSP Nepal, which has fielded the most candidates from the Dalit community of 13 percent, has also given such an opportunity to only 9 percent. UML, CPN, RSVP and RPP have fielded only one percent of candidates from the Dalit community.

Similarly, only Janmat, JSP Nepal and Shram Sanskriti Party have included the Muslim community according to their share, while Tharus have been included only by CPN, Nagarik Unmukti and Janmat.

Former MP Anjana Bishankhe says that such candidatures pose a risk of making the upcoming parliament similarly ineligible. ‘If the party is led by men, especially from the Khas-Arya community,’ she said, ‘they have given tickets only to those of their own gender and community, which is likely to make the upcoming parliament equally ineligible.’

Political analyst Tulanarayan Sah, who led this study, says that political parties are nominating candidates who can win rather than following inclusiveness. Analyzing the election results since 2015, he said that it has been very difficult for Dalits and women to win elections. ‘Madheshis, Janajati, Tharu and Muslims seem to have won only in areas where they have a majority population,’ he said, ‘Khas-Aryas win everywhere. Yadavs and Sah seem to have won in Madhesh.’

Stating that candidates from the upper class in the social structure (caste in the context of Nepal), the wealthy class and those with connections to the state power tend to win elections, he said that more media coverage and strong social relations are also seen as the basis for winning. Analyzing the results of Nepal’s elections, he said that parties have been distributing tickets directly considering this situation, and he said that although the proportional system was introduced to address the inequity it creates, it has been ‘dishonest’ in it.

The proportional representation system was first given 60 percent weightage in the 2064 Constituent Assembly, and it did not reserve the Khas-Arya community, which was already overrepresented in politics. The structure of the Constituent Assembly formed by the 2064 and 2070 elections under this was relatively inclusive. In addition to the Khas-Aryas, the representation of all indigenous peoples, women, Dalits, etc. in the Constituent Assembly had increased. Before the Constituent Assembly elections, about 65 percent of the Khas-Aryas were represented in parliament, but after the proportional system was adopted, it was reduced to about 35 percent, although that was still more than the proportion of their population. ‘It was dishonest to make up for such a reduced representation in the constitution,’ said Sah. The provisions changed in the constitution that were different from the Constituent Assembly elections were – first, the weightage of proportional representation in parliament was reduced from 60 to 40, and second, the Khas-Arya community was given the highest reservation of more than 30 percent. An example of the impact it had is clear when examining the 2079 election results. Out of 165 people elected directly, 96 (58 percent) were elected from the Khas-Arya community, which was 35 percent of the entire House of Representatives. On top of that, when another 32 percent reservation (110 people) reserved for the Khas-Arya community through proportional representation is added, their representation in the parliament (out of 275 people) reached 48 percent. That is, one out of every two MPs is from the Khas-Arya community.

While the representation of the Dalit community is less than half in proportion to their population. When Chhabilal Bishwakarma was elected directly from the UML, all other parties sent 15 people through the proportional representation, 16 Dalit MPs reached the parliament, while according to the population, there should have been at least 36 Dalit MPs. ‘The proportional system was introduced to fulfill the aspiration of inclusivity that the direct electoral system could not fulfill,’ said analyst Sah, ‘However, there are so many loopholes in it that it cannot be improved.’

Former MP Bishankhe says that the current situation has come about because the advocates of inclusion failed during the drafting of the constitution. ‘The Khas-Aryas, who already had more representation, were also given a share in proportional representation,’ she said, ‘The ruling class was given representation through reservation, and that is where the mistake happened.’

Former UML MP Binda Pandey says that reform in the election law is necessary and can be improved in two ways. ‘If we want to improve the current law, let’s make arrangements to fill the representation of the communities that cannot be directly represented through proportional representation,’ she said. In the second option, she suggested changing the electoral system itself. ‘For that, the constitution itself should be amended.’ "We will guarantee their candidacy directly by changing the electoral system," Pandey said. "Then, for those communities who cannot be elected under the direct system, let us guarantee them proportionally according to their share of the population."