A new government will assume responsibility in Nepal this week, to be formed by RSP or Rastriya Swatantra Party. By now, people in Bangladesh have learned much about this party. In the recently concluded elections, they secured 182 members in the 275-member ''House of Representatives''. The general elections in Nepal initially take place for 165 seats, with the entire country divided into 165 parliamentary constituencies. Voters directly elect 165 MPs. The remaining 110 members of the parliament are elected based on the proportional votes received by parties.
On the day of the election, voters receive two ballots at the same time. With one ballot, they vote for candidates from different parties in their constituencies. With the second ballot, they choose any national party participating in the election. The day before the election, each party submits its list of 110 candidates for the second type of MP election to the election commission. Based on the proportion of the second ballot votes, the remaining 110 MPs are selected from these lists maintained by the election commission.
In Nepal's elections, a voter can choose a candidate from any party in their constituency directly and also vote nationally for their preferred party. Through these two processes combined (125+57), the RSP won 182 seats this time. The RSP received 44 per cent of the direct candidate-centered votes and approximately 48 per cent of the preferred votes as a party.
Meaning, more people voted for them as a national party than their candidates received in various constituencies. Similarly, the opposition Nepali Congress candidates received 19 per cent of the votes from the given votes as individual candidates and 16 per cent as a national party. Meaning, 19 per cent of voters preferred their constituency-based candidates, but fewer voters preferred them as a party.
The diverse preferences of Nepali voters prompt a comparison with Bangladesh. Discussions on electoral system changes, including proportional representation, arose during the mass uprising. Opponents of proportional representation argued it leads to a hung parliament and creates a struggle among parties during the government formation, causing instability in the country. But in Nepal, with a mixed system, RSP achieved not just a simple majority but nearly a two-thirds majority in the parliament, enabling them to form a government on their own and smoothly run the country for the full term if they wish. Thus, there’s no permanent relationship between voting systems and political or government formation instability, as seen here.
On the other hand, the proportional system in Nepal allowed several other parties to maintain a healthy presence in parliament despite the RSP's tide, bringing some opposition voices to the forefront. There have been cases where a party won only one seat in the main vote but secured four additional seats from the second ballot calculation, leading to their five MPs in parliament now.
Nepal kept a mixed system to bring the largest number of voters' representatives to parliament. Yet, of the 64 parties participating in the election this time, only six are present in parliament. According to the rules, parties receiving less than 3 per cent votes do not get any seats. This experience indicates the need for a more liberal proportional system in Nepal's electoral process. Reformists argue that bringing more representatives of diverse opinions into parliament would enhance citizens' interest in the political system.
Reflecting on Nepal's experiences, we can recall the bitter debates during the interim government's time in Bangladesh regarding electoral system reform. We can also consider the recent election results. Analyzing the election results in Bangladesh reveals that the ''winners'' (regardless of the party they belong to) represent a minority of the total constituency-based voters. A large portion of legitimate voters has no representation in parliament. To clarify and elaborate, here’s a discussion about five constituencies in the Mymensingh district chosen randomly. In the results from Mymensingh-1 to Mymensingh-5, there were 2,441,382 voters in total. The winning candidates received only 26 per cent (638,353 votes) of those.
In these five constituencies, there were 1,360,685 valid votes cast. The winners received 47 per cent of those valid votes. Meaning, they did not receive the majority of the valid votes cast. This means the majority of the voters who cast valid votes in these constituencies have no representative in parliament. Yet, it is true that under the current system, the winning Members of Parliament here were legitimately elected.
I can assume that even though chosen randomly, this small image of five constituencies will not be inconsistent with the 300 constituencies overall. Clearly, this points out a flaw in our electoral system. When a majority of the voters, especially most legitimate voters in electoral areas, have no representation in parliament, the electoral system calls for revisions. There can be debates on how to go about these changes or reforms.
In the case of Nepal, we see that everyone who came to vote has a representative in parliament. Those who voted for losing direct candidates can still send a representative to speak for them in parliament through the national party selection on the second ballot. Meaning, there’s a representative for everyone who voted in Nepal's parliament.
Sri Lanka has also reformed its electoral system to make it more representative, and elections are conducted there in a mixed system, making the parliament more representative as well. It is assumed Sri Lanka might move towards a parliamentary system from the presidential system in the future to increase public participation in national policy-making.
In the last four years, all three countries in South Asia where mass uprisings occurred had a major expectation of necessary state reforms for public interest. As the electoral systems in Nepal and Sri Lanka were already reformed to some extent, they are now focusing on economic and administrative reforms. For Bangladesh, the expectations of the uprising have been confined to the controversies of consensus commissions.
Although, if the new government wishes, they could raise discussions for making the electoral system more representative in the new parliament for public interest. The recent electoral outcome in Nepal is an example that there’s no risk of future election loss.
On the other hand, if the electoral system does not become a carrier for change gradually and people lose interest structurally in the current election and parliament pattern, there will truly be a distant risk for the ruling class. Beyond the bubble of stability, the air in South Asia demands foresight from policymakers. New generations here seek change beyond the illusion of stability. Five years ago, South Asia did not know what kind of bloody mass uprisings were coming. Similarly, it might be difficult to predict now what form the mass uprising will take in the next five years without meaningful change.
#Altaf Parvez is a researcher on South Asian history.
*Opinions are the author’s own.
#This article, originally published in Prothom Alo print and online editions, has been rewritten in English by Rabiul Islam