Website on Nepal and Himalayan Studies
| Time/Weather, Kathmandu
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: firstname.lastname@example.org
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: email@example.com , firstname.lastname@example.org
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: email@example.com
Schmidt's dictionary of modern Nepali
German Sherpa (pdf)
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.
The inclusively elected Constituent
The same politicians have held elections to a new CA on 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.
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):
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
Links on the crisis situation:
24/10/2014: Janajatis for at least 10 states, if no 14-model, by Roshan Sedhai (kp), Parties in no hurry for CA vote on disputes (kp), UCPN(M), Madhesis trying to bridge distance, by Pranab Kharel (kp)
(See full calendar with festivals)
Nepal democracy: Gateway to
South Asia Democratic Forum (SADF)
Foundation for Applied Political Science of South Asia (APSA)
Man Maya Med e.V., Verein zur F�rderung Humanit�rer und Medizinischer Hilfe
Nepalprojekt der Helene-Lange-Schule, Wiesbaden