Introduced with the promise of bringing Nepal’s marginalised and excluded communities into the political mainstream, the Proportional Representation (PR) electoral system is once again under intense scrutiny. Major political parties have unveiled candidate lists dominated by familiar and powerful faces, reigniting long-standing concerns about the misuse of the system. Few elements of Nepal’s electoral framework have generated as much debate as PR. Conceived as a corrective to historical exclusion and as a mechanism to amplify the voices of women, minorities, and disadvantaged groups, it was meant to complement direct elections by strengthening inclusivity. In practice, however, it has increasingly become a safe passage for political elites unwilling to face voters at the ballot box. A close examination of the PR lists submitted to the Election Commission (EC) suggests that the spirit of the system continues to be undermined. While established parties have long been accused of exploiting PR provisions, the replication of similar practices by parties branding themselves as “new political forces” has only deepened public disillusionment.
Polls 88 days away, process for proportional representation be...
The House of Representatives (HoR) comprises 275 members, of whom 110 are elected through the PR system and 165 through direct elections. Directly elected lawmakers are chosen on a first-past-the-post basis from individual constituencies, while PR members are elected by treating the entire country as a single constituency. Only national parties that secure at least one direct seat and obtain at least three percent of the total valid votes qualify for PR representation. Yet, in practice, many parties have distorted this arrangement by prioritising influential leaders, their relatives, close associates, or individuals reluctant to contest direct elections. Proximity to party leadership, rather than public credibility, competence, or expertise, has often proved decisive. Although the PR system is also designed to ensure inclusive representation from designated clusters, poor electoral performance by parties has frequently prevented genuine representatives from entering Parliament. This pattern of misuse has fostered an unhealthy divide within the House of Representatives, where directly elected lawmakers are often regarded as superior, and those elected through PR are treated as second-tier legislators. Such perceptions are largely rooted in nepotism and favouritism in PR candidate selection. If parties were to nominate individuals who are genuinely deserving, capable, and broadly representative, this stigma could be significantly reduced. Inclusive representation must go hand in hand with quality, accountability, and integrity.
The dissolution of the HoR following the Gen Z movement on September 8 and the subsequent incidents of violence on September 9—which led to elections being scheduled for March 5—highlights the cost of ineffective parliamentary functioning. Previous parliaments, including those dissolved and later reinstated by Supreme Court orders, also failed to perform effectively, often due to excessive control exercised by a small circle of senior leaders. The current political crisis is, in many ways, a direct consequence of that failure. Political parties must now demonstrate a genuine commitment to correcting past distortions. Established parties bear a particular responsibility to learn from their mistakes, while newer parties that claim to offer an alternative must prove their credibility through principled and transparent choices. The responsibility to safeguard the integrity, purpose, and dignity of the PR system rests squarely with the parties themselves. With PR lists now registered at the EC, the country has effectively entered the election phase. Although parties still have time to amend their lists, voters will be watching closely to see how seriously they honour both the letter and the spirit of the PR electoral system.
