KATHMANDU: The term of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Dinesh Kumar Thapaliya is less than a month away.
Having successfully overseen all three levels of elections, Thapaliya is now facing two key policy tasks that remain unfinished as his tenure draws to a close.
First, the draft bill to integrate the elections is still languishing in the government’s hands.
Second, he is set to retire before the draft amendment to the Political Parties Act even reaches Parliament.
Nonetheless, Thapaliya plans to take leave from the Election Commission only after submitting the bill on political parties to the government.
During his tenure, the Election Commission faced significant controversies and challenges. The Nepal Communist Party split. The CPN-UML split. The Commission was further embroiled in the aftermath of several other party divisions.
Despite this, Chief Election Commissioner Thapaliya, with a steady temperament, has navigated these challenges and upheld the integrity of the Election Commission.
However, this interview does not focus on a review of Thapaliya’s entire tenure.
Instead, it centers on the current debates surrounding electoral system reforms, the proposed election law, the Political Parties Act, and the ordinance on party division.
The ruling parties, Nepali Congress and CPN-UML, are working together under a seven-point agreement to change the electoral system through constitutional amendments.
The government believes that the current electoral system prevents any party from securing a clear majority.
Additionally, leaders from the Congress-UML alliance are advocating for an increase in the threshold for small parties, proposing a rise to 5 or 10 percent.
On the other hand, the opposition Maoist Center has argued that the electoral system is costly and should be reformed.
Chief Election Commissioner Thapaliya, however, believes that legal reforms within the existing electoral system would be more appropriate.
To this end, the Commission has already submitted a unified law draft to the government, and a bill to amend the Political Parties Act is in the works.
Thapaliya also shared an important point in his conversation with Khabarhub: “If the 2027 elections are to be held under the new law, the bill must be passed in this session of Parliament.
Moreover, if the electoral system itself is to be changed, and the constitution isn’t amended soon, the Commission will not have enough time to conduct the elections in 2027.”
When asked about the issues the parties and the Commission have not agreed on in the Political Parties Act, Thapaliya revealed seven major points of contention.
These include the threshold for national party recognition, the criteria for women candidates, authority issues, and the number of terms a candidate can serve under proportional representation.
Regarding the government’s consultation with the Election Commission about bringing an ordinance on party division, Thapaliya responded with a hint of sarcasm.
“We are fighting the case in court. If that provision (ordinance) is passed, there will be a major rally in Maitighar Mandala,” he quipped.
Below is an excerpt from a conversation between Chief Election Commissioner Thapaliya and Khabarhub Editor-in-Chief Arun Baral, and colleague Gyanu Ghimire:
As Chief Election Commissioner, you oversaw elections at all three levels, as well as by-elections. Now, political parties are claiming that the election system has become expensive. They argue that this system prevents any party from securing a majority, which leads to instability. Consequently, they suggest that the electoral system should be changed through constitutional amendments. What does your experience tell you about this?
Some people asked me this question, and I responded with a question of my own: “You say the election system has become expensive, but what exactly is the cost?” They replied that direct elections have made the system costly.
I pointed out that in our mixed electoral system, direct and proportional elections are in a 60/40 ratio. “Is the 60 percent portion expensive?” I asked. They agreed, saying yes.
However, I clarified that I was not referring to the direct election system of 2015. We held general elections in 2048 BS, 2051 BS, 2056 BS, 2064 BS, 2070 BS, 2074 BS, 2079 BS, and now we are preparing for the 2084 BS elections. I asked again, “Which of these elections was the most expensive?” They were caught off guard.
I continued, “From what I’ve heard, no one called the 2048 BS election expensive. Nobody spoke about the elections in 2051 BS, 2056 BS, or 2064 BS. When we talked about the 2070 BS election, they were surprised. When we discussed the 2074 BS election, they were shocked. By 2079 BS, they were trembling. Who made it expensive—me?”
They didn’t respond. “Did the people make it expensive?” I asked. Still no reply. “Did journalists or businessmen make the election expensive?” I pressed. Again, silence.
I questioned further, “Why do you increase the expenses, and then ask me about it? Should I bear the burden of your dishonesty?”
I concluded, “Those responsible for such inflated costs are the ones who contaminate democracy and elections. We need a strategy to eliminate them.”
This conversation with a leader led me to conclude that the system itself isn’t inherently bad. It’s the actions of people that determine whether the system is good or bad.
I also asked the leader, “When the constitution was promulgated in 2072 BS (2015), did we agree to this system? The system where no one gets a majority? I didn’t create the constitution—I just accepted it.”
He responded, “No, at that time, the essence of the constitution and the system for forming the government were structured in such a way that we believed we should move forward with ideological consensus and partnership between the parties.”
“So, that’s how the government was run, right?” I said. Then I gave an example, “According to election statistics from the Election Commission, in the four elections of 2048 BS, 2056 BS, and 2074 BS, one of the manifestos received a majority. History shows that all four of these parliaments, which held a single majority, had short-lived tenures. Is that kind of instability truly stability?” I asked.
He responded, “Times were different then. Why bring up old things? Now, there will be stability.”
I countered, “How can you believe that something that hasn’t happened in the last 50 years will suddenly happen now?”
I continued, “What I’m saying is that the electoral system should be changed, but as a saddened citizen, 62 years old, I’ve witnessed the Panchayat system, the multi-party system, the interim electoral system, and now I’m in the fourth system. Why burden me with a fifth system? How much more should I bear? If this continues, there will be another system in 10 years.”
I compared this to the Constitution of India, which was established in 1950, and has remained unchanged since.
Similarly, the American system has been in place since 1886. This shows that flaws in an electoral system can be addressed from within.
If any political party has good ideas, principles, programs, and works that can win the hearts of the people, it is possible to achieve a majority within the current system.
Many may not agree with what I say. However, even if the electoral system is to be changed, the current system has caused enough turmoil. As such, if we are to move forward with a new system, it should be one that is created unanimously and thoughtfully.
If, after changing the electoral system, people like me say, “This is a mistake, I won’t accept it,” and if the voices of disappointment turn into anger, that doesn’t mean there is no system—it just means the new system has failed.
I have said that the Election Commission is ready to work and conduct elections according to whichever system the government and political parties decide to introduce.
During your tenure, the Commission submitted a draft of a unified election law to the Ministry of Home Affairs, but has it been shelved there?
This issue was also raised in the parliamentary committee. Discussions around reforms that could strengthen democracy, reduce the cost of the electoral system, and enhance international prestige by conducting transparent and credible elections have been put forward. I raised two main points during these discussions:
First, reforms to the law on election management. We have proposed 50-60 new provisions compared to the previous version.
Second, reforming the political parties themselves. It’s not enough to only reform the electoral process; the party law should be extensively reformed as well. These two reforms should be prioritized.
Internally, we need to prepare for a change in the electoral system. We’ve emphasized that these reforms are necessary, no matter what system is in place, and they would fit with any system. However, progress has been slow.
The Election Commission will soon submit the Political Parties Act, and we are currently in discussions about it. Since my tenure is nearing its end, I won’t be able to participate in the parliamentary debate. However, other members of my team will take part.
The situation, however, is very challenging. If the elections for 2084 are to be held under the new law and it is not passed in this session, it will remain just a mirage. Otherwise, there won’t be enough time.
After the law is enacted, a structure must be created and communicated properly. Bringing in a law right before an election is not effective.
That being said, is it not difficult to manage time if the election system is changed? The ruling parties are delaying constitutional amendments, right?
Yes. If a law is introduced to allow Nepalis living abroad to vote, the voting structure will need to be changed. Should we opt for online voting?
We need to study that. If we plan to arrange voting from the embassy, we need to address that as well. Therefore, changing the system and holding the election will require extensive preparations.
Two key questions have arisen if we are to change the electoral system: one is whether all three levels of elections should be held separately, and the other is whether they should be held together.
Under the current constitution, it is possible to hold two elections simultaneously. We have seen this in the US, and now India has adopted the “One Nation, One Election” slogan.
This should be our lesson too. We can hold all three elections together. We would need to increase the number of polling stations slightly, which would reduce costs significantly.
After all, it’s about electing people’s representatives, and it should be done together. It could be achieved by amending the constitution to extend the term of people’s representatives by 6-7 months or adjusting the term of others. This is possible.
However, if we change the system and hold elections, it will be difficult for the Election Commission unless there is at least a one-year preparation period. A lot will need to be managed.
How is the preparation of the party law by the Election Commission progressing? There is also talk of increasing the threshold. What is the Election Commission’s stance on this?
We believe the threshold is related to the concept of a national party. Looking at electoral systems around the world, being a national party is not sufficient on its own to justify having a threshold.
A national party needs to meet various criteria, such as having a well-established organization, fielding candidates, and meeting a threshold.
The party must reflect the national character, and there must be a guarantee of inclusive representation, as we are advocating for now.
We propose that there should be three types of parties: national parties, provincial parties, and local parties. A party that is represented only at the local level should be classified as a local party.
If a party has access only to the provinces and has won seats only in the provinces, it should be considered a provincial party.
To qualify as a national party, it must have at least one representative from each of three different provinces in Parliament.
We have outlined three or four criteria for recognizing a party as a national party. The issue of state funding has also come up, and we believe there should be financial transparency for those parties.
Thus, we believe we need to redefine the concept of a national party. Let’s not focus solely on the threshold. The threshold is simply a standard. If we don’t have a threshold, then we don’t, but if we do, it should carry weight and meaning.
Is the current government, consisting of the Congress, UML, and other parties, serious about finalizing the election law proposed by the Commission?
This government is more serious than the previous one, and I say this with full conviction. The current Home Minister, Ramesh Lekhak, was involved during the drafting stage, and he has made a significant contribution.
He is convinced of the need for these reforms and has been actively engaging with us in two or three meetings. He is committed to completing the unfinished business.
However, he is working to establish a consensus among the parties to clarify a few remaining issues.
What are the issues that the Commission and the parties have not reached an agreement on?
First: We had explained that the provision in Article 084 of the Constitution requires at least 33 percent of women to be candidates in the cluster for direct elections.
The parties raised concerns, asking if there would be enough candidates or if it would be difficult to focus on more women. We have thoroughly considered this and stand by our position that we should continue to discuss it.
Second: We proposed integrating the issue of the threshold into two separate acts and reconciling them. We have no objection if the threshold is set at three percent. However, the definition of a national party should be clearly outlined.
Third: We understand that it could have been possible to conduct local elections without party symbols. This is primarily an issue of symbols.
We introduced this as a later agenda item, and while it may require some debate, it is a significant change that is in accordance with the Constitution.
Fourth: We proposed that proportional candidates should not be allowed to run for more than two terms.
There are differing opinions, with some suggesting that candidates should not be allowed to run even once, while others feel that two terms is insufficient. This issue needs to be resolved.
Fifth: We have clearly specified the election date in the Act itself. The parties, however, are still debating whether setting the date in this manner will be inconvenient.
Sixth: We suggested that if the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority files a case against a candidate, they should be prohibited from standing for election until the case is concluded.
The current situation, where a candidate is elected but later suspended, creates a contradiction. Why should someone be elected only to be suspended afterward?
The parties have argued that this practice is not in line with international norms and have requested that the Commission withdraw this provision.
The Commission believes that even if this is consistent with international practice, we have a responsibility to ensure the integrity of the election process.
Seventh: There has been an attempt to include provisions about party splitting in the law on political parties. This concerns situations where a candidate wins an election independently and then joins a party, or where someone wins on a party ticket and later forms a new party.
This violates the principle of the vote. Voters cast their votes for a candidate or party, and if that candidate leaves the party or splits the party, they should lose their position.
The Commission believes that sovereignty lies with the people, and the person who leaves the party should apologize to the electorate and vacate the symbol they were elected under.
Regarding the issue of party division and the potential ordinance for dissolving a party, what is the Commission’s view?
An ordinance was passed on Bhadra 2, 2078 BS, which had no connection to the Election Commission. It altered the arrangement for the central committee and the parliamentary party from a 40 percent requirement to a 20 percent one, which led to the split of the UML and Unified Socialists.
We registered the new party that emerged from this split. However, the ordinance was later rescinded.
We asked the government about the status of the law and the regulations that needed to be issued by the Commission.
The question was: Was the law passed by Parliament effectively nullified by the executive’s removal of one section? We wrote strong letters to the government, but we received no response.
Afterward, several parties (including Upendra Yadav, Ashok Rai, and Baburam Bhattarai) split again and sought registration. We made it clear that if the government didn’t clarify this issue, the law from Bhadra 2078 (which allowed the 20 percent rule) was still valid.
We registered the new party accordingly, and this is currently under review by the esteemed Supreme Court.
When it comes to ordinances and laws, our position is clear: if a law is to be introduced to facilitate party division, it should be established based on the previous ordinance, which was agreed upon by the Nepali Congress, CPN Unified Socialist, CPN Maoist, and other parties.
We are actively pursuing the case on this law, and if such a provision is reintroduced, it will likely lead to widespread protests. I’ve said this before: if the law is introduced, there will be a large rally at Maitighar Mandala.
The Unified Socialists were pleased with the law at the time, as were the Maoists and the government. The Congress also supported it.
The CPN-UML, initially opposed, now accepts it since they are part of the current government and can claim credit. If a law is passed with the consensus of all parties in Nepal, no further changes should be made.
However, if the law is altered again, the Commission will be compelled to address it, as it will raise questions about the legality of the new arrangement.
The Commission’s stance remains that if a party splits or a member leaves a party, they should lose their position as a Member of Parliament, as per the constitutional provision.
Comment