The new Constituency Delineation Commission (CDC) is finally up and running and is now busy discussing the modalities of delineating electoral constituencies with political representatives. The talks have centered on working out an appropriate number of constituencies and proportional representation (PR) seats for the new CA election slated for November 19. The CDC has its task cut out. The major parties are divided over the number of constituencies and the basis to delineate them.
During the discussions, NC’s Bimalendra Nidhi argued that the number of electoral constituencies in Madhes should be increased in line with population increase in the last decade. While the population of Madhes was 48.40 percent of total national population 10 years ago, it has gone up to 50.27 percent (2011 census). CPN-UML’s Agni Kharel argued against treating a particular region as a single entity just to increase electoral constituencies.[break]
He was of the view that electoral constituencies should be delineated on the basis of geography, population and administrative access while UCPN (Maoist) representative Hita Raj Pandey stated that geography, population and culture should be prioritized. Madhesi leader Hridayesh Tripathi wanted the constituencies to be delineated on the basis of population growth. Rastriya Janamorcha Chairman Chitra Bahadur KC expressed concern over making population growth the sole basis of constituency delineation as it would disadvantage the hills which have been witnessing growing outmigration to the Tarai belt.
There could be 122 electoral constituencies in Madhes if the delineation is based on population growth. Nothing wrong in that. However, we believe that the total number of constituencies should not exceed the current 240. The four major parties—UCPN (Maoist), NC, CPN-UML and United Democratic Madhesi Front (UDMF)—had reached an understanding to have 240 first-past-the-post (FPTP) seats, an equal number of PR seats and 11 nominees for a 491-strong CA.
But various parties—including the dissenting forces like CPN-Maoist, Madhesi People’s Rights Forum-Nepal of Upendra Yadav and Federal Socialist Party of Ashok Rai—are opposed to the idea of reducing PR seats as it would make CA less inclusive, with possible exclusion of smaller parties and marginalized communities. It would be hard to create a favorable environment for election without addressing this demand for increased PR seats. As we have been arguing, the secret is to increase the representation of marginalized groups through more inclusive policies, not to elect another jumbo CA, which would not go down too with the people who bore witness to endless infighting in its last version. This infighting eventually sank the CA ship.
The major parties are already focusing on Madhes to improve their electoral prospects. For a good reason. Places like Kathmandu, Lalitpur, Bhaktapur, Sunsari, Sarlahi, Rupendehi and Kailali would have more seats in line with population growth in these districts. There is a clear provision in the interim constitution that the constituencies should be delineated on the basis of census. But if the number of FPTP seats is to be kept constant, electoral constituencies will have to be slashed somewhere. This might not be politically incorrect, but something which must be done to get a constitution through CA II.
Related story
Govt task force proposes to provide professional license for dr...
_20240311121839.jpg)
