The political situation in April 2019 : One year of left-wing government in a nutshell
by K.-H. Krämer, 16 April 2019

In April 2019, the political situation in Nepal is superficially stable, but disappointing in detail. The government of Prime Minister Oli, who was elected to office in February 2018, has a two-thirds majority in parliament. This could provide stability unparalleled since democratisation took place in 1990.

The merger of the two left-wing government parties to form the Nepal Communist Party (NCP) at the end of May 2018 should have further strengthened this option. The problem is that this merger only took place at the top and even there it is not always consolidated. In the middle and at the grassroots level, the NCP is still a long way from unity.

In view of the majority situation, Oli announced a radical change a year ago. Within the 5 years of his term of office, he wanted to decisively advance the development of the country. Numerous, partly utopian development projects were announced. However, the obvious problems that are so close to the hearts of the population remain largely unnoticed to this day.

I do not want to claim that Nepal over the years has not changed seriously and positively in an incredibly short period of time. Take alone the area of our projects in Solukhumbu, which we have been able to visit more or less regularly in the past 45 years. It is a shining example in this respect, especially with regard to the village of Yawa (nep. Hewa): running water in the houses, electricity, toilets, wood-saving stoves with chimneys, panes on the windows, wooden floors, a primary school with 5 classrooms, a community centre for the village community, recently a road connection, soon to be a kindergarten and a health centre, all this was unthinkable in the mid-1970s. However, the change was only possible thanks to the unimaginable commitment of the local population, especially the younger generation and the continued support of foreign friends and organisations. In comparison, the state's contribution has remained small to this day.

The criticism of government planning in this regard is that people's urgent needs are neglected. Instead, Oli talks, for example, about ocean ships to reach Nepal via developed waterways, the connection to the Tibet railway, an East-West railway line in the Tarai and the connection to the Indian railway network. These may all be good projects for the future, but for the inhabitants of Kathmandu, for example, it would be more urgent to finally make the roads, which have been destroyed more and more for four years, passable again (Only the streets in the city centre, which are constantly used by politicians and state guests, are in good condition.) and to provide clean drinking water, to name just two things. Reconstruction after the severe earthquake of 2015 is still not making real progress. Almost 2,000 schools alone have still not been rebuilt.

One of the most important issues for the Oli government would have been the implementation of the federal state. In many cases, there is still a lack of legal regulations, the delimitation of responsibilities and the distribution of resources. One often gets the impression that the government does not want federalism at all and instead strengthens the central government. Provinces and local units still lack a clarification of the scope of responsibility and action.

The handling of fundamental human rights deserves massive criticism. Freedom of the media and freedom of demonstration have been drastically restricted; criticism of the government via the social media is punishable. At the same time, the political parties (and this applies to all of them) cover up and court criminal elements. Women's rights in extremely patriarchal Nepal remain severely restricted, especially with regard to citizenship. The rights to better participation enshrined in the constitution and laws are simply disregarded. Violence against women is rampant; their prosecution is often politically prevented. Obviously, it is not the intention to come to terms with the crimes committed during the civil war. The commissions set up years ago for this purpose lack legal bases, resources, personnel and time. Repeatedly offered international support is strictly rejected as external interference in internal Nepalese affairs. The perpetrators of the past, at the same time, sit in government, parties, authorities, security forces, etc. and now want to provide justice for the victims. What can we expect?

Corruption, the containment of which was a declared goal of Oli’s government, is increasing. Although also well-known personalities are more and more convicted of corruption (prominent example: the head of the anti-corruption authority), these persons can then bail themselves out again with a small amount of the evaded sums of money.

In terms of security policy, Oli has recently cobbled together the sole right to deploy the army, a clear violation of the constitution. Three issues currently threaten internal security and the constitutional foundations of the state. On the one hand, there are independence aspirations in the Tarai, as they have been presented for years by Dr. Chandra Kanta Raut. So far this has been done rather verbally and not militantly, but Raut has, nevertheless, been repeatedly arrested. In March, Oli reached an agreement with Raut, the content of which is controversial. Oli sees in it a giving in of Raut, while the latter speaks of an agreement of Oli on a referendum about the independence of the Tarai. Significantly, he has founded a new party called the Janamat Party (Referendum Party). Further development remains to be seen.

Similarly unconstitutional and threatening are the demands for a return to Hindu state and monarchy, which are no less unconstitutional than Raut's demands but are never punished with legal steps. For years, they have been put forward by the various factions of the National Democratic Party, the group of politicians of the former royal non-party Panchayat system who won only about 2% of the vote in the 2017 elections (and of course also by the deposed King Gyanendra). It is alarming that a very large number of the leading politicians of the main opposition party Nepali Congress as well are now calling for a referendum on this issue. This would bring the rights of ethnic groups, Madheshis, Muslims, Dalits and women in general back to the level of 1990 at most. The entire Maoist uprising and its few achievements would become meaningless.

The Communist Party of Nepal (CPN), the remaining radical wing of the Maoist party under its leader Netra Bikram Chand, is directed not only against these two movements, but also against the constitution in its present form. This party had already attracted attention at the time the elections of late 2017 through militant attacks, which it has recently intensified again. The Oli government is not only prosecuting these crimes, but has now outlawed the entire party. This approach is very controversial among constitutional experts. Hundreds of CPN politicians have been arrested in recent weeks; the number of attacks has decreased. But we all know that even the beginnings of the Maoist movement were militantly suppressed in vain by the state in 1995. Politicians around the world do not seem to be able to learn from history.

The political situation after local elections in 6 of the 7 future provinces
by K.-H. Krämer, 16 July 2017

Local elections, overdue for 15 years, finally have taken place in all but one of the future federal provinces. Elections in province 2 are still unsure though scheduled for 18 September 2017.

The run-up to the elections has been overshadowed by unrest among a number of political forces that resulted from the dissatisfying new constitution in 2015 as it had been forced through by the leaders of the three big parties. This unrest began with the blockade along the Indian border in the aftermath of the promulgation of the constitution and the dissatisfaction never really ended, especially among a number of Tarai forces.

According to the constitution, the new federal system has to be implemented before 21 January 2018, i.e. in less than 200 days time, including elections on all three levels of the new political system. This has put the ruling elite under enormous pressure after it already had wasted one and a half year for its traditional power struggles.

The current government led by Nepali Congress and CPN-MC had promised constitutional changes to the Tarai forces because the coalition was in need of their support to get into power. At the same time, they knew that they did not have the two-thirds majority in parliament that would have been necessary for such amendment. On the other side rejected the main opposition party, CPN-UML, restrictively all demands by the Tarai and Janajati forces, irrespective of their merit. Instead, they called for immediate local elections, something they had never talked about when their president K.P. Oli was Prime Minister.

• There was no doubt that local elections were necessary for different reasons. The problem was that the requirements to hold such elections had not been met, yet. To mention only a few shortcomings:
• the local restructuring was pushed through in a hurry with many new local units being heavily disputed; even the 7 provinces and their borders were and are still under discussion;
• the Election Commission did not have enough time to update the electoral rolls properly and was further put under pressure by often changes in the election schedule by the government;
• millions of migrant workers did not get a chance to participate in the elections even though this had been required by the constitution;
• there was not enough time to educate the voters on the complicated election system leading to partly more than 20 per cent invalid votes, especially in several metropolitan cities;
• the identification of candidates on the ballot papers through the election symbols of their parties left many doubts; only the parties with seats in the current parliament got a single nation-wide symbol; this meant a great disadvantage for candidates from all other parties;
• laws and regulations to run the local units had and have not been passed, yet; fiscal regulations for the local units are still under discussion;
• the election manifestos of all bigger parties predominantly dealt with national issues, not with local ones, giving the impression the parties were running for parliamentary elections.

Nevertheless have the elections mainly been peaceful. This reflects the people’s excitement to elect their own local representatives after twenty years. The results, so far, show a clear trend though evaluations are still incomplete: The CPM-UML must bee seen as the winner of these elections, at least with regard to the positions of mayors/chairs respectively their deputies in the municipalities respectively rural municipalities. This reflects several trends after 1990. In the last local elections of 1997, the CPN-UML had also been the winner. If one compares the elections after 1990, left forces have continuously grown in strength compared to the Nepali Congress, though this strength is relativised by the multitude of left parties. Until 1999, the CPN-UML had been the main profiteer of this trend. This changed in the CA elections of 2008 when the now CPN-MC entered the election process and even became the strongest party. Since then the CPN-MC suffered several splits and lost a lot of voters what was already proved in the CA elections of 2013. Main profiteer has once again been the CPN-UML. Different from the 2013 elections, the Nepali Congress is now only second strongest party behind the CPN-UML but far in front of its coalition partner CPN-MC. The ultra-conservative RPP, that stands for a return to monarchy and Hindu state and rejects the federal structure, has once again sunk into insignificance. But also other small parties hardly played any role. Some analysts interpret the election result as a signal that Nepal is on its way to become a three party system, especially against the background that a three percent hurdle for the upcoming parliamentary elections has already been decided.

Some analysts attribute the UML’s success to its stiff attitude with regard to the rejection of constitutional amendments and its pressure to hold local elections immediately. The latter may indeed have played a role. But the former argument cannot be proved since the Tarai and ethnic forces, that had vehemently called for a constitutional amendment ahead of the local elections, gave a picture of misery. Some of these forces had unified prior to the elections but they still were too numerous though they pretended to have common interests. Most of all, they were undecided if they should take part in the election until the very last moment. The newly formed Rastriya Janata Party Nepal (RJPN) even boycotted the first two rounds of elections.

This behaviour gives rise to doubts if these parties really represent the interests of Tarai and Janajati groups which without any doubt are still not really included in the new political system. Sometimes, one gets the impression that the power struggles within these Tarai and Janajati parties are not much different from those that take place within the three big parties for long.

Related to the local elections, one must say that these parties showed a lack of democratic understanding. By boycotting the elections or at least discussing such boycott, they robbed the members of those groups which they pretended to represent of any chance to get their interests represented on the local level. What, for example, is now the chance of the RJPN to have any say on the local level for the next five years? The party is in an offside position as it has refused to become legitimised by the voters.

Re-escalation in the Tarai: the danger of the failed state
(16 March 2017)

In Maleth, Saptari district, on March 6, a bloody incident occurred in which five people were killed by targeted police shooting and numerous others were injured. This renewed escalation was almost to be expected in the face of extreme political tensions in the light of the local elections scheduled for May 2017. The shock is all the deeper as the police have once again proved their disrespect for human rights.
(see complete article)

Nepal's politicians and the rule of law

0n March 30, 2016, the EU and India published a joint statement after a summit meeting in Brussels. Point 17 of this statement was related to the situation in Nepal. The EU and India pledged continued support to Nepal in its reconstruction efforts following the devastating earthquakes in 2015, including capacity building and long term development. But they also agreed on the need for a lasting and inclusive constitutional settlement in Nepal that will address the remaining constitutional issues in a time bound manner, and promote political stability and economic growth.

Nobody referred to the promised continued support offer to Nepal, but Nepalese government vehemently offended the critics in the constitutional procedure. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs verbally claimed: “The EU-India joint statement not only hurts the sentiments of the people of Nepal but also defies the fundamental principle of non-interference in internal affairs of a country. The constitution of Nepal was democratically drafted accommodating aspirations of the people of Nepal”

Two things in this statement are misleading or even wrong. First, many people have been dissatisfied with different parts and regulations of the new constitution and the way it has been written. These sections of society have definitely not been hurt by the EU/India statement but they may even feel happy about this support of their own critics.

Secondly, it is unbelievable that MoFA claims the new constitution has been democratically drafted and accommodates the aspirations of the people. The latter is always a problem as the aspirations have been very diversified in this multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-religious and multi-lingual state with its long history of non-inclusive unitary politics. Those participated in politics and other spheres of public life naturally had the interest to preserve their status and privileges as far as possible while underrepresented sections of society like women, Janajati, Madhesi, Dalits and Muslims anticipated fundamental changes as they had been promised by the traditional political Tagadhari elite time and again after 2006.

This brings us to the lie within the MoFA statement. Many principles that had to be followed while drafting the new constitution had been fixed by the Interim Constitution (IC) of 2007 and several agreements between the political parties among themselves as well as with the Nepali state. In a democratic state, political parties are bound to respect the rule of law. In this case was the interim constitution the basic law, that had to be obeyed by the government, the elected Constituent Assembly (CA) and all other political activists. Under the rule of law, it is the fundamental duty of the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution and subordinate laws and to safeguard the strict obedience of this constitution by the state executive and legislative.

The interim constitution had prescribed that the new constitution had to be drafted by the inclusively elected CA, not by the leaders of the big political parties. The latter are all part of the traditional political elite of male Tagadharis, especially Bahuns. By nature, their interests collided with the interests of the underrepresented groups of society. This is why the IC demanded that the CA had to be elected inclusively with respect to all sections of society and that this inclusive assembly had to discuss and draft the new constitution as the foundation of an inclusive, secular and federal republic of Nepal.

The disregard of constitutional rules already started with the selection of candidates for the CA elections that according to article 63 of the IC had to reflect the composition of society in respect to the FPTP system as well. The parties violated against this article in 2013 even more than in 2008. Latest after the committees of CA I concluded their suggestions for the new constitution at the turn of the year 2009/10, the leaders of the big parties seized the task of discussing and drafting of the constitution from the elected members of the CA.

This disregard of constitutional prescriptions was continued under CA II as well. And this misconduct was committed by all the tree big parties without much difference. Nevertheless, was a new constitution not in sight, when the big earthquakes happened in spring 2015. The top leaders of the three parties forgot their differences of opinion on many issues of the new constitution only after they recognised that their public image declined dramatically because of their total failure after the earthquakes.

So, they openly placed themselves as overlords of the country, disregarded all constitutional rulings and prior agreement and even told the Supreme Court to shut up when it criticised their unconstitutional procedure on the new constitution claiming this was a political affair in which the SC not had to intervene. In a democratic state is the decision of the SC a binding law that has to be respected by executive and legislative, but obviously not so in Nepal.

Along these lines has the new constitution been drafted by a handful of traditional male leaders. The following discussion of this draft by the general public was a farce as the majority of the people did not get the chance to have their say. Not even the representatives of the traditionally excluded sections of society within the CA were allowed to suggest necessary changes of the draft but had to follow the voting order of their party leaders. Besides, the voting was not secret so that everybody could recognise dissenting MPs. Yes, MoFA, this constitution was democratically drafted, indeed!

The consequences of this continued disregard of the rule of law by government and leading politicians are well known. To hold the whole state as hostage and causing much suffering to the people, as was the reaction of the angry Madhesi groups in the Tarai, was not the right way, and also the support and extension of this blockade by India was reprehensible and a violation of international law against the suffering people of Nepal. But primarily responsible for all this have the leading politicians and their non-understanding of democratic rules, their duties and the needs of the country. How else can be explained that they still deny justice to the victims of the conflict, that they do nothing for the reconstruction of the country, that they hardly invest in urgent development projects as planned in the budget and that they still favour committed criminals and corrupt persons among the top leaders of their parties? Secularism is once again under discussion. Federalism only exists on paper and has hardly been discussed after the promulgation of the new constitution. The country is still ruled by the same old circles of male Tagadharis that have failed time and again. Many other things could be mentioned as well. The rule of law looks different. Failed politicians like Nepal's top political leaders have to be criticised for all this from inside and from outside of the country in support of the sentiments of the majority of the people of Nepal.

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:

Non-inclusiveness of elected FPTP candidates:

Ethnicity of the elected FPTP candidates:

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)

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.