Nepal flag Nepal Research
Website on Nepal and Himalayan Studies

updated: 25/04/2015

Click for Kathmandu, Nepal ForecastTime/Weather, Kathmandu
Weather forecast

Himalayan Paradise
Himalayan Paradise Trek & Expedition (P.) Ltd.
P.O. Box 23304, Kapan-8, Kathmandu, Nepal. Phone: +977-1-4823172, 
Cell: +977-1-9841212248
Website: http://www.himalayanparadisetreks.com, E-mail: info@himalayanparadisetreks.com
Panorama Trekking
Panorama Himalaya Trekking Pvt. Ltd.
P.O.Box: 25301, Kathmandu, Nepal. Phone: +977-1-2297661, 
Cell: +977-1-9841426784
Website: http://www.panoramatrekking.com, E-mail: pasang2001@hotmail.com , kusang_sherpa2008@yahoo.com
Annapurna Foothills Trek
Annapurna Foothills Treks & Expedition (P.) Ltd.
Boudha Naya Basti 4, Kathmandu, Nepal. Phone: +977-1-6211187, 
Cell: +977-1-98411579429
Website: http://www.annapurnatreksexpedition.com, E-mail: info@annapurnatreksexpedition.com


crisis
news
imprint
bibliography
publications
NI-Literaturlisten
radio streams


press evaluations






used abbreviations
biography
crisis
culture
development
economy
education
health
history
human rights
infrastructure
law
media
miscellaneous
nature
politics
society


Dictionaries:

Nepali-English (pdf)

Nepali-German (pdf)

Schmidt's dictionary of modern Nepali

Samakalin Nepali Shabdakosh

Sherpa-English (pdf)

Sherpa-French (pdf)

Sherpa-German (pdf)

German Sherpa (pdf)

Sherpa-Italian (pdf, temporaneamente)

Indonesian-German (pdf)

Italian-German (pdf)

French-German (pdf

Devastating earthquake hits Nepal on 25 April


Ceterum censeo duces novas esse inveniendas!!

Updated evaluations on crisis solution can be found here. Evaluations on other topics can be accessed through the headwords above.


3441 days since Delhi agreement of political parties
3288 days since King Gyanendra was forced to end his putsch
3090 days since Comprehensive Peace Agreement
2924 days since promulgation of Interim Constitution
2561 days since elections to CA-I
1938 days since CA-I committees presented suggestions
1180 days since SRC presented suggestions
1063 days since dissolution of CA-I
0521 days since elections to CA-II
0093 days since promised Constitution by CA-II failed


Today's links on the crisis situation:

25/04/2015: Dahal for letting people decide 7 or 10-province model, by Ashok Dahal (rep), Oppn forms team ‘to deal with NC, UML’: Maoist chief vows to move ahead as per the collective decision of the 30-party alliance on statute writing (kp), Dahal denies any pact with NC or UML, by Tika R. Pradhan (ht), 30-party alliance to stay intact, by Ram Kumar Kamat (ht), Statute talks unlikely before Koirala’s return (kp), Historic day fails to make its mark (kp), Kin of martyr say state has forgotten them, by Byashshankar Upadhyay (ht), Jajarkot to Jakarta: The politicians get to use our taxpayer money for medical treatment. The common citizens get nothing and are forgotten by the state, by Guffadi (kp)

see more links


Comments:

Failure of CA-II
One year after the elections of 2013

Elections of 19 November 2013
Way to the 2nd CA election


Failure of CA-II

When election to a second CA took place on 19 November 2013, the people were hopeful that the power struggles of the political party elites had come to an end. Despite the numerous and grave violations of the interim constitution that paved the way to CA-II, the people peacefully participated in the elections in never seen numbers.

The election results meant a change in power relations. Related to the three big parties, the winners of the CA-I elections, UCPN-M, were the losers now while the former losers, NC and CPN-UML were the big winners in November 2013 though they missed a two thirds majority of seats. And this great number of seats was only thanks to their overwhelming success under the direct election system (FPTP, First Past The Post) by which 240 members of the CA were elected. Under the PR (Proportional Representation) system, they even shortly missed an absolute majority.

The misery of CA-II immediately started with the failed interpretation of the election results. Formally, a two thirds majority is necessary to decide on the new constitution. This is not possible without the close cooperation of ruling parties (NC and CPN-UML) and oppositional parties. Besides, the assessment criterion should not be the number of seats the camps have won but the number of supporters that have contributed to the election results, i.e. the ruling parties did not even have an absolute number of supporters in the elections.

This fact did not prevent the ruling parties from challenging all previous agreements. Parts of their leaders even queried the inclusive federal state that had been one of the most fundamental agreements after Jana Andolan II in 2006. Especially are all top leaders of NC and CPN-UML against the federal structure of future Nepal as it had been suggested by respective committee of CA-I in January 2010.

CA-I had ended in ethnic turmoil over the federal set-up of the country in spring 2012 and CA-II is currently on the best way to have the same fate. The then ruling UCPN-M with its relative majority was in favour of ten or eleven so-called single ethnic identity based federal states while the then opposition parties of NC and CPN-UML decried this as anti-national and a way to disintegration of the country.
Both these standpoints have not changed since then, but the solution should lie anywhere in between. Nepal is a multi-ethnic state from east to west and from north to south. This has been the result of centuries of internal migration and it was further promoted by the way the Shah monarchy had structured and organised its Hindu state. The consequence is that Nepal, once covered with small principalities and a number of ethnic territories, has become a single ethnic identity based central state that has deliberately suppressed the identities and interests of the numerous ethnic and regional groups which together constitute the clear majority of the total population of the country.

Better education and growing political consciousness have made Janajatis, Madheshis, Dalits, Muslims and women in general aware of their denied rights and non-participation in politics, administration and public life. The growing identification with traditional cultural values has been a logical consequence. They are aware of the fact that state and nation are only identified with culture and values of the ruling elite that almost exclusively recruits from male Tagadhari circles.

Federalism can be used as a tool for better integration if traditional ethnic territories are not divided and as it happened several times with administrative reforms in Rana and Shah times. Ethnic groups and their traditional homelands are still not accepted as integral parts of the nation's history and society. According to constitutional ruling, their cultures and languages should have been preserved and promoted by the state after 1990 but nothing happened.

The current interim constitution of 2007 even sought for appropriate participation of all social groups in the constitution writing process. But this was only binding under the PR election rules. For the FPTP system it was only demanded. So, the political parties that are all dominated by male Tagadharis, especially Bahuns, disregarded this constitutional demand. The result is that those 240 MPs who have been elected under the FPTP system are predominantly male Tagadharis.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that the party leaders also disregard the constitutional ruling concerning the constitution writing process. They see this as the task of the top leaders of the three big parties. The elected representatives in the CA shall later only vote as ordered by their respective party leaders. The question remains: Why had a CA with inclusive ambitions to be elected at all if this is the way of writing the new constitution? Those representatives from traditionally excluded social groups are not participated in the dialogue at all. If they protest against this procedure, they are called anti-nationalists or separatists that pose a threat to the integrity of the nation.

The top leaders of the bigger parties conceal that they in fact do everything to uphold their grip on power and privileges. Their groups' dominance in all spheres of public life has been deduced from the position they had gained under the Hindu state of the royal Shah system. Persons may have been exchanged after 1990 but the same social circles still dominate the country.

This is also proved by the fact that not only the conservative parties that derived from the once royal Panchayat system, like RPP and RPP-Nepal, once again try to revive Hindu state and Shah monarchy, but that this demand is also supported by a greater section of MPs and leaders of the ruling NC. They have nothing to fear even though such demands are anti-national and in contradiction to Jana Andolan II, several agreements after 2005 and the interim constitution of 2007. Others like the Madheshi leader C.K. Raut, who demands a separate Madhesh state, are molested and arrested time and again.

The bigger parties have claimed in early 2014 that the new constitution will be promulgated on 22 January 2015. This is simply not possible. The ruling parties want to place their non-inclusive proposal in the CA for vote but the opposition parties boycott this. Without a compromise with the opposition, the ruling parties will not be able to find a two thirds majority for their proposal. Besides, the opposition has already taken the issue to the streets and gags the public with criminal bandhs. The situation turns out to be similar as in spring 2012, only with changed power positions.

All parties and leading politicians must fundamentally change their mind if the country shall really get a long-lasting and inclusive political system and constitution. This will only be possible after the traditional male elite gives up its power grip within all political parties. Besides, their must be appropriate respect for the interests and demands of the traditionally excluded sections of society. All future federal provinces will have multi-ethnic societies. The demand for single ethnic identity based states that are upheld by Maoist and some ethnic parties is out of place. But it is necessary to give special rights to greater ethnic or language groups in the future provinces. The current proposal of the ruling parties only aims at the transfer of the model of the current single ethnic identity based central state upon the future provinces. This would mean that the dominance of the traditional male Tagadhari circles will continue there as well. It will inevitably lead to further social unrest. This is definitely not what the people demanded during Jana Andolan II.


One year after the elections of 2013

One year has passed since elections to the second CA took place and hopes for a new constitution within the near future are shrinking once again. Leading politicians of the two parties in government, Nepali Congress (NC) and CPN-UML may still be claiming that they want to push through a constitution of their mind by two thirds majority vote. But the facts speak a different language. The current proposal of NC and UML has nothing to do with the big promisses made by the political parties in 2006.

The proposal of the government parties means more a continuation of the current single ethnic identity based central state and its transfer upon seven future federal provinces than the introduction of the promised inclusive federal state with equal chances and participation of all sections of society. The government parties reject the introduction of ethnicity based federal units as they are demanded by ethnic organizations and left parties, claiming that the future federal porovinces have to be of multiethnic character.

Yes, Nepal in its entirety is a multiethnic state as it has been first admitted by the constitution of 1990. But this reality exists only on paper. It is not reflected in the country's political, social and economic spheres. The status of the traditionally excluded groups of society (women, Janajatis, Madheshis, Dalits, Muslims) has not changed much after the political Bahun elites made big promisses in 2006. Their representatives are still hardly to be found in state bodies and commissions, leading party circles, diplomatic service, upper administration levels, judiciary, media, security services, education system, health services, etc.

What is national is still defined by culture, thinking and values of the Tagadhari castes. Every demand that does not fit into this system is automatically called "anti-national". It is anti-national, if Janajati and Madheshi activists demand for federal units, whose boundaries fit to historical ethnic mainlands, and for an identification of the provinces with the culture and language of ethnic groups. But the male Bahun party leaders call it "national" if composition and structure of the single ethnic identity based central state are transferred to the future provinces.

The Madheshi activist CK Raut has been arrested because he verbally demanded for an independent Tarai state. Such demand may be against the interim constitution but this constitution also guarantees freedom of opinion, and Raut did not call for a militant revolution. It is also against the interim constitution if RPP-Nepal, RPP and members of the ruling NC demand for a return to monarchy and Hindu state and reject secularism. But these activists don't have to be afraid to be arrested for their verbal demands and threats.

If the top party leaders really want an inclusive federal system then they must first start to listen to the demands and interests of the traditionally excluded groups. They must try to understand their cultures, languages and values and accept them as integral parts of Nepali nationality and history. And they must start to participate them in an adequate and equal way on levels of state and society. Most of all, they must participate them in the writing of the new constitution.

So far, only the male Bahun leaders of the bigger parties discuss and decide about the contents of the new constitution. Why, at all, has a CA been elected? The so-called "leaders" should have written into the interim constitution that the new constitution is written by them and then be presented for voting at an elected parliament.

A new constitution only makes sense if it provides a basis for an inclusive federal state that adequately and equally participates all sections of society independent of race, caste, ethnicity or gender. The parties are wrong if they claim that future provinces cannot be named after the traditional ethnic mainlands. The latter are also an integral part of Nepali history. Such procedure would not open the way to separatism, as claimed by a number of "leaders", but it would show that the ethnic groups have a place the country's history.

Administrative reforms by the Ranas and later by the Panchayat system have intentionally divided traditional ethnic mainlands. The boundaries of the future federal provinces have to reverse this historical injustice. The current proposal by the ruling parties misses this chance and tries to continue the anti-ethnic politics of the past. Besides, it is doubtful that this proposal will be passed by the CA with a necessary two thirds majority. Many Janajatis, Madheshis and Dalits from among the MPs of NC and CPN-UML have already distanced from the proposal of the party leaders.

So, most probable is either a further delay of the promulgation of the constitution or a defeat of the proposal of the government parties by voting. One should also not forget that the two ruling parties together have got less than 50 percent of the votes in the elections of November 2013, in other words, they do not represent the majority of the Nepali people.


Elections of 19 November 2013

Elections to a second CA took place on 19 November 2013. The Election Commission (EC) speaks of more or less peaceful elections. The turnout of voters of about 77.90% under the PR system and 74.65% under the FPTP system has been a lot higher than ever before in Nepali history. 4.96% of the FPTP votes have been invalid as well as 3.2% of the PR votes. In 2008, the figues had been 5.15% and 3.66% respectively.

Counting of the FPTP (First Past the Post) votes had been finished first. The UCPN-M that had won 50% of the FPTP seats in the 2008 elections is the big loser in the FPTP election this time. The winners under the FPTP system are the dominating parties of the 1990 political system, i.e. the Nepali Congress (NC) and the CPN-UML. Both parties together have garnered 82.5% of the direct mandates. Only ten parties have been able to win FPTP seats; it had been nine parties in 2008.

9,463,862 valid votes have been counted under the PR system. Altogether 30 parties win seats (25 in 2008); 92 parties win no seat (29 in 2008). The three leading parties of the FPTP system also lead here, but the absolute dominance of NC and CPN-UML has vanished. The NC is the leading party here as well, but compared to 2008 it has got only about 4.46% votes more. The CPN-UML has got 3.39% more than in 2008, while the UCPN-M has lost about 14%. The conservative hardline party RPP-Nepal, that stands for monarchy and Hindu state and rejects a federal setup of the country, has ended on fourth place winning about 23 PR seats. In 2008 it had won only four seats, the only MPs who voted against the abolition of monarchy in May 2008. Also the conservative RPP has slightly improved with probably winning five setas more than in 2008. NC and CPN-UML together have failed a two-thirds majority in CA-II that had looked possible after the FPTP counting. As in 2008, two independent candidates win FPTP seats, one of them being a NC dissident.

By-elections were necessary in four constituencies because Sushil Koirala and Sher Bahadur Deuba (both NC) as well as Madhav Kumar Nepal and Bam Dev Gautam (both CPN-UML) had been victorious in two constituencies each. These by-elections in Kathmandu-2, Chitwan-4, Bardiya-1 and Kailali-6 took place on 22 June 2014. This time, Kathmandu-2 where Madhav Kumar Nepal had been successful in November 2013 went to the NC candidate. The other three constituencies were won by the same parties as in November 2013. This means that the NC has now 197 seats in the CA and the CPN-UML 174 seats.

The final result of the elections to CA-II looks like this:

Party
PR votes
%
PR
seats
FPTP
seats
total
seats
% of
total
seats
Nepali Congress (NC) 2,418,370
25.55
91
105
196
34.09
CPN-Unified Marxist-Leninist (CPN-UML) 2,239,609
23.66
84
91
175
30.43
UCPN-Maoist (UCPN-M)
1,439,726
15.21
54
26
80
13.91
Rastriya Prajatantra Party-Nepal (RPP-N)
(party split on 30/12/2013 supposedly over the nomination of the PR representatives and rejoined on 02/01/2014)
630,697
6.66
24

24
4.17
Madheshi Peoples Rights Forum-Democratic (MPRF-D) 274,987
2.91
10
4
14
2.43
Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) 260,234
2.75
10
3
13
2.26
Tarai Madhesh Loktantrik Party (TMLP) 181,140 1.91
7
4
11
1.91
Madheshi Peoples Rights Forum-Nepal (MPRF-N) 214,319
2.26
8
2
10
1.74
Sadbhavana Party 133,271
1.41
5
1
6
1.04
CPN (Marxist-Leninist) (CPN-ML) 130,300
1.38
5

5
0.87
Sanghiya Samajvadi Party (SSP) 121,274
1.28
5

5
0.87
Nepal Majdur Kisan Party (NMKP) 66,778 0.70 3
1
4
0.70
Rastriya Jana Morcha (RJM) 92,387
0.98
3

3
0.52
CPN-United 91,997
0.97
3

3
0.52
Rastriya Madhesh Samajvadi Party 79,508
0.84
3

3
0.52
Tarai Madhesh Sadbhavana Party
62,746
0.66
2
1
3
0.52
Rastriya Janamukti Party
63,834
0.67
2

2
0.35
Tharuhat Tarai Party Nepal
62,526
0.66
2

2
0.35
Nepal Pariwar Dal
51.823
0.55
2

2
0.35
Dalit Janajati Party
48,802
0.52
2

2
0.35
Akhanda Nepal Party
36,883
0.39
1

1
0.17
Madheshi Peoples Rights Forum-Republican (MPRF-R) 33,982
0.36
1

1
0.17
Nepali Janata Dal 33,203
0.35
1

1
0.17
Khambuwan Rastriya Morcha Nepal
30,686
0.32
1

1
0.17
Nepa: Rastriya Party
28,011
0.30
1

1
0.17
Janajagaran Party Nepal
27,397
0.29
1

1
0.17
Sanghiya Sadbhavana Party
25,215
0.27
1

1
0.17
Madhesh Samata Party Nepal
23,001
0.24
1

1
0.17
Samajvadi Janata Party 21,624
0.23
1

1
0.17
Sanghiya Loktantrik Rastriya Manch (Tharuhat) 21,128
0.22
1

1
0.17
92 other parties
518,385
5.48
0

0
0.00
Independents



2
2
0.35

Non-inclusiveness of elected FPTP candidates:

social group
number
in 2013
% in 2013
% in 2008
male
230
95.83
88
female
10
4.17
12
Tagadhari
130
54.17
39
Janajati
65
27.08
35
Madhesi
39
16.25
23
Muslim
5
2.08
(under Madheshi)
Dalit
1
0.42
3

Ethnicity of the elected FPTP candidates:

Caste / Ethnic group
number
%
% of
population
Bahun
75
31.25
12.18
Chhetri
44
18.33
16.60
Madheshi (without Yadav and Muslim but including Tarai Dalit)
23
9.58
20.05
Tharu
19
7.92
6.56
Yadav
16
6.67
3.98
Newar
13
5.42
4.99
Thakuri
8
3.33
1.61
Rai
6
2.50
2.34
Limbu
6
2.50
1.97
Gurung
5
2.08
1.46
Muslim
5
2.08
4.39
Tamang
4
1.67
5.81
Magar
4
1.67 7.12
Sannyasi / Dashnami
3
1.25
0.86
Ghale
2
0.83
0.09
Sherpa
2
0.83
0.43
Chhantyal
2
0.83
0.04
Kami
1
0.42
4.75
Sunuwar
1
0.42
0.14
Thakali
1
0.42
0.05
other Janajati and Dalit
0
0.00
5.50

The multiplicity of Madheshi parties - their number has been 34 in these elections - has led to a decline of directly elected representatives from these parties in the second Constituent Assembly (CA-II). Five Madheshi parties have won 12 seats. In 2008, 3 Madheshi parties had won 43 FPTP seats. 13 Janajati parties have participated in 2013 (7 in 2008) and they seem to have failed as in earlier elections, probably also because of missing unity.

Madheshi, Janajati and Dalit parties (2008 and 2013 compared):
(based on a table provided by Mahendra Lawoti in his article "Pahichanbadi dalko bistar", Kantipur, 13 December 2013)


Madhesi
Janajati
Dalit
total
% in 2008
11.60
1.89
0.44
13.93
% in 2013
11.39
3.96
0.72
16.07
seats 2008 (FPTP+PR)
83 (43+40)
5 (0+5)
1 (0+1)
89 (43+46)
seats 2013 (FPTP+PR)
50 (12+38)
12 (0+12)
2 (0+2)
64 (12+52)
parties 2008
4
7
2
13
parties 2013
17
13
3
33

Definitely, it is far too early to ask for reasons of this election outcome. Probably, the reasons will be manifold. The great number of parties, especially with Madheshi and Janajati background, may have been an advantage for the bigger parties. Disappointment of unfulfilled promises of the winner of the 2008 elections, the UCPN-M, may have been one reason for their losses. The party's split, its denial of justice, its inability to introduce any of the promised and necessary social, economic and political changes, and, finally, its forgotten support of non-included sections of Nepali society may have been other reasons.

The attitude of NC and CPN-UML has not been better in recent years. The leaders of all three bigger parties have been responsible for the failure of the first CA. Maybe we must see the reason for the revival of NC and CPN-UML in the FPTP elections in the consciousness and democratic voting pattern of the Nepali citizens. In 2008, the people voted in great number for the Maoist party that had made big promises, while the other two parties had been responsible for the failure of the 1990 system. But the UCPN-M, besides many other failures, could not implement its ideas and promises. So, the voters returned to the other big parties hoping they have learnt. There is no reason to think so, but the voters, at least, gave them a new chance. This is democracy. The voters understand how it works, but the party leaders don't, neither those from NC and CPN-UML in 2008 nor those from the UCPN-M this time around.

Finally, there has been a general trend in the voting behaviour in Nepal ever since 1991. In the first general elections after about 30 years of partyless Panchayat system, the NC became the strongest party with an absolute number of seats in the then 205 member parliament and a relative majority of votes of almost 40%. After that, there has been a continuous trend of voting for left, so-called communist parties. In 1994, the CPN-UML won a relative majority of seats and in 1999, it would have got more votes than the NC for the first time, if the party had not split prior to the elections. In 2008, the voters had great hope in the UCPN-M and gave less votes to the CPN-UML that had played a disappointing role under the 1990 system. The numerous communist parties together already won an absolute majority of votes in 2008. This trend seems to have been stopped for the moment.

An evaluation of the election results will take time. It already shows that the distinctness of the FPTP system has faded away after the counting of the PR votes, just as it did in 2008. As expected, the PR vote counting has been dominated by those parties that participated nationwide under the FPTP system.

The reason of the election has been to elect an assembly that shall write a new constitution. For this, it needs a two-thirds majority, and can definitely not be garnered by one or two of the bigger parties. This is what the parties will have to understand if the second CA shall be successful: Close cooperation and willingness for reasonable compromises will be necessary, but this is exactly what the parties have lacked in CA-I.:

number of voters: 12.147.865
female voters: 6.166.829
male voters: 5.980.881

third gender voters: 155
suffrage age: 18 years and above
passive voting age: 25 years and above


voting hours: 19 November 2013, 7 AM - 5 PM

election cost: 7.750.000.000 Rs.

mobilized security forces:
Nepal Army: 62.000
Nepal Police: 48.000
Temporary Police: 45.000
Armed Police: 32.000
National Investigation Department (NID): 4.000

observing organizations: 57

constituencies: 240
polling locations: 10.013
polling centres: 18.457
polling officers: 125.158
volunteers: 88.944

registered parties: 130
contesting parties: 122

independent candidates for FPTP: 1.115
of them women: 64
FPTP candidates: 6.128 for 240 seats
of them women: 667
PR candidates: 10.709 for 335 seats
nominated seats: 26


Way to the 2nd CA election:

On 14 March 2013, a new government (election council) has been sworn in by President Ram Baran Yadav under the chairmanship of Chief Justice Khil Raj Regmi. It is said that this government has been made possible by application of Article 158 of the Interim Constitution. Since this article requires the consent of the legislative parliament within one month, the president simply annulled this part of Article 158 for the time being, just as if this only representative president had absolutist powers.

As Regmi refuses to step down as chief justice, the separation of powers has been completely annulled. The executive parliament had already been destroyed by the top leaders of the bigger parties on 27 May 2012. But the Supreme Court (SC) had only decided that the Constituent Assembly (CA) could not be extended as the constitution writing body. It never mentioned that the CA also had to be abolished in its function as legislative parliament.

It would not have been any problem to revive the CA in this legislative function as active and former justices of the SC have confirmed on several occasions. It were the party leaders who were not able to bring the state back on a legitimate path by this most constitutional way.

Now, Nepal has moved another step away from the rule of law. Not only the top party leaders but also the president and the chief justice disregard the interim constitution and subordinate laws. Executive, legislative and judicative powers are joined in one hand, that of the chairman of the so-called election government. But the male top leaders of four parties (UCPN-M, NC, CPN-UML and MPRF) have already made clear that they will have the final control over the ongoing processes. For this reason, a so-called High Level Political Committee (HLPC) has been formed with representatives from these major political parties. Its task shall be to facilitate the election council and resolve political problems. This may already mean the death of the election plans since the leaders of the major political parties have proved often enough that they will never be able to solve any problems.

The plan was to hold elections for a new CA on 21 June 2013. Since this was not possible, the elections shall now take place on 19 November 2013. The composition of this new CA shall be reduced to 491 members, by Shambhu Ram Simkhada (rep) (from formerly 601). 240 of them will be directly elected, 240 through the proportional representation system, and 11 shall be nominated by the election council on the basis of political agreement. The first CA had been by far too big but the reduction of the proportional system from 60% to 40% of the elected members is a further step back from greater inclusion. Neither are the parties inclusive nor have they democratic structures. Their almost exclusively male Bahun leaders will never nominate the candidates for the direct system in an inclusive way. This may be suggested by the interim constitution and by the election law, but it is not binding as in the case of the proportional system.

But not only the inclusive election right will be reduced, there are a number of other shortcomings that already call the elections for new CA into question. So is the right to vote still not guaranteed to all citizens of Nepal. This most prominently concerns, e.g., the traditionally excluded groups like Madhesi, Janajati, Muslims and Dalits, but also the descendants of Nepali mothers and foreign fathers. There may have been some legal changes in this respect after 2006 but they have never been really implemented, especially not with regard to the traditionally excluded groups.

Further, there have been a number of miususes of the first CA by the political parties, most of all by their so-called top leaders. Elections for a new CA only make sense if these misuses are prevented right from the beginning. One of the most prominent failures of the top party leaders has been the continued misuse of the CA for their political power games. Most negative has been the intervention of the party leaders into the constitution writing tasks of the CA. Not the party leaders but only the elected members of the CA had and will have to discuss and write the constitution. The inclusive election system only makes sense if they are totally free in their opinions and decisions concerning the new constitution and not bound to the will of the party leaders. The top party leaders have destroyed the first CA because they were not able to understand this system.

But the perspective must also include the time after the new constitution has been promulgated. The political parties should use the time to stand up for internal democracy, inclusion and transparency. Besides, they must turn away from their politics of impunity. The half-hearted ordinance for the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), as signed by the president on 14 March 2013, once again gives doubt that the party leaders will change. Nepal needs a completely new leadership within all political parties if the new beginning shall be successful.


(See full calendar with festivals)

Sister websites:

Links:

National anthem of Nepal

Adibasi Song

German-Nepal Friendship Association website

Nepal democracy: Gateway to Nepali politics

Centre for Constitutional Dialogue (CCD)

Heidelberg Papers in South Asian and Comparative Politics (HPSACP)

South Asia Democratic Forum (SADF)

Foundation for Applied Political Science of South Asia (APSA)

Man Maya Med e.V., Verein zur Förderung Humanitärer und Medizinischer Hilfe

Nepalprojekt der  Helene-Lange-Schule, Wiesbaden

Copyright © Nepal Research.
nepalresearch.org is not liable for any unsuitable material found in any of the links included in this web site.
Please contact the respective web sites for any relevant information.