During a discussion with a group of journalists last week, the director of a Hungary-based think-tank expressed surprise over the paucity of pre-election polls in Nepal.
Indeed, our silence over prospective election results must have mystified outside observers, where independent pre-election surveys are the norm rather than the exception. Who will call the shots in the November vote? Each of Big Three claims it will emerge victorious with two- third majority. [break]
File photo
But we will not get a clear picture of the new CA unless we carefully assess the current status of Nepali Congress, UCPN (Maoist) and CPN-UML, as well as the nature of the electorate and voters. The Big Three’s status update first.
NC has an edge over its rivals on two fronts: It is still a united party. It has not lost many of its Janajati brethrens to other parties, and it has anti-incumbency advantage. Over the last six years, NC’s popularity has not slid primarily because it was not at the helm. The likes of Khum Bahadur Khadka and Chiranjibi Wagle may have tarnished the party’s reputation a bit, but it has not stoked disappointment among its cadres to the degree that they switch loyalties.
Even if the issue of corruption is raised, NC can point a finger at its arch rival, UPCN (Maoist): The corruption of NC leaders is nothing compared to UCPN (Maoist)’s embezzlement of billions from cantonments. All this, however, has not helped the GOP keep its traditional constituencies intact. NC’s push for federalism and secularism has dismayed traditional supporters who could lend their support to RPP-N instead.
Things are not working to UCPN (Maoist)’s advantage either, primarily because its failings are still fresh in public memory. Its dismal performance in the government, corruption scams, perennial flip-flops on federalism, and most importantly, party split are the major setbacks for the largest political force in the erstwhile CA. As for CPN-UML, the vast majority of Janajati and Madheshi leaders have either defected or formed new parties.
UML has had no success stories to boast of from its two government leaderships after last CA election, and voters hold UML candidates responsible for holding the CA hostage with indecisiveness and lack of clear stand on contentious issues.
The situation is such that none of the Big Three has any solid advantage over others. There are two choices for voters: either choose new forces that emerged from the Second People’s Movement, however incompetent they turned out to be in the republican set up, or endorse pre-2006 forces. They have no hope from the former, and supporting the latter would be tantamount to reverting to pre-2006 political order. Those who are really frustrated with these two forces could opt for RPP-N, as no other alternative force has emerged over the last six years. There are other factors at play as well.
My Republica colleagues are reporting from the hinterlands that contentious issues like federalism and government form are not the real concerns of the voters—they want jobs and development. Yet the parties are divided on federal issue.
NC, UML and UCPN (Maoist) have floated 7-13, 7 to 11-province proposals respectively. Most Madhesi parties have proposed similar models. The federal issue is going to be a major concern especially for Madhesi and Janajati constituencies. Altogether, 124 parties are contesting election with various agendas. Since the much-touted election alliance among likeminded forces is still a remote possibility, the election mandate could be much more fractured than before. A number of regional and ethnic parties could gain ground, putting the Big Three at disadvantage.
The most important factor is the electorate. Only 12.14 million, less than half the country’s population, are going to cast vote this time around. Millions are not exercising their franchise because there is no provision for them to do so. According to the Central Bureau of Statistics, 1.9 million people aged 15-24 are either living or working in foreign countries.
This most politically conscious population is watching political development at home with disappointment. Then there are professionals working in Kathmandu whose constituencies are elsewhere. Many from this population segment cannot vote since they have not registered their names or cannot go to their electoral constituencies leaving behind their work.
Sadly, the Election Commission has kept these two vital groups out of the voting process, either by default or design. If it had introduced the system of online voting for absentee population or allowed professionals to vote from wherever they are, it would have played a big part in shaping the election outcome. This leaves us with mostly middle-aged and senior citizens as prospective voters. Besides, security threat from Mohan Baidya-led 33 party alliance, which looks bent on enforcing 10 days of sustained banda from November 11, is going to be a major deterrent.
Even if all 12.14 million voters go to polling booths on November 19, not all of them will be able to create an election mahol (environment); those who do mostly come from the 19-34 age group.
Currently we have around 400,000 youth aged 19 years, 2.3 million aged 20-24, 2.08 million aged 25-29 and 1.7 million aged 30-34. So much depends on who they plump for. Not all of them may have registered to vote, but those who have will undoubtedly play a decisive role. The 19-year-olds are emotive and can create public opinion in favor of one or the other political force as they can influence their parents and relatives. Likewise, the 20-24 age group is more rational, desires change and will lobby for the same. The 25-29 cohort is calculative and weighs its choices carefully; the same with 30-34 group.
Youth of first and second category (those up to 19 and those between 20-24) are new voters. Born in the 1990s, this cohort has seen the Maoists’ rise to power and their precipitous fall. They may have heard or read about NC and UML’s failings in parliamentary system, but have been first-hand witnesses of Maoist failings. As a result, this generation is perhaps the more frustrated with the Maoists.
Actually it is this group that had tilted the situation in Maoists’ favor in the last election. Back then when university students went back to villages they created a mahol in Maoists’ favor. They portrayed Maoists as change agents and pressed their parents and relatives to vote for the ‘revolutionary, forward-looking and progressive force.’ The line between the progressives and status quoists, which has now been blurred, was more palpable then.
It would be much better if one of the Big Three got a comfortable majority. It would at least facilitate the writing of the constitution. But it would not matter much which party or parties win most seats as long as they are committed to working as per the people’s mandate and give them a semblance of change, stability and good governance.
Related story
Blessing in Disguise
