Views of a Nepali Economist

The following is the unedited version of my article published in Republica on November 24, 2013 with the title "Winners and Losers".


Finally, the election is over. Not that it was without any hiccups. Election observers had permission to talk to people in voting stations and take pictures to ensure documentation and accountability. However, this fact was lost on some liaison officers assigned by the government to accompany international observers. One of our liaison officers instigated a political party cadre in Kharipati, Bhaktapur, to stop us from taking pictures in the premises of the school that we were observing. He cited a “text message” from the Home Ministry informing of a ban on mobile phone and electronic devices in voting stations. He and the party cadre refused to believe that the message was meant only for voters, and that election observers need to be able to talk to people and take pictures as proofs of whether the election has been free and fair.

We also discovered that most volunteers in voting stations had not been trained. Our interviews with volunteers in Bhaktapur showed that only a couple of election officers on duty had been trained. Volunteers had been simply chosen by the VDC, municipality or local political groups. Despite the lack of training, it was remarkable to observe these volunteers learn quickly and becoming quite effective in their duties. Against our expectations, volunteers in rural voting stations were more effective than urban stations. As a result, rural voting stations looked much more organized than urban stations.

In overall, our observation team felt that the election was carried out smoothly. There were hiccups, early in the morning, in setting up voting stations and sealing the ballot boxes. Election officials seemed to be under-trained on opening procedures, including application of seals on boxes. However, they learnt quickly, and most voting stations were up and running by 7:30 am. Presence of security personnel in voting stations ensured that there were no confrontations or violence. Our interactions with security personnel, voting public, and election officials informed us that this election was much more peaceful compared to the 2008 election. Early reactions and reports from international observers such as the Carter Center confirmed our observations. Observers from the European Union announced that 97% of voting stations that they observed had conducted free and fair elections.

However, there were surprises after the vote count began. Most leaders who had been vocal about ethnic and identity based states for the last 5-6 years started losing in their core constituencies. Prominent ethnic and identity leaders like Upendra Mahat, Gopal Kirati and Bijay Gachhadar have lost from areas where nobody expected them to lose. Even when they have won, the winning margins have been small. Maoist leader Prachanda lost from Kirtipur and Baburam lost from Rupandehi, and not by small but wide margins.

Clearly, results show that divisive political figures have been rejected by the people. This rejection is a statement from the public on how they feel about being incited. Ethnic and identity actors won big in 2008. However, their subsequent actions have not gone unnoticed by the public who saw through the charade, and decided to punish them this time. There is no other explanation for their rejection.

Most surprising has been the voting public’s rejection of the Maoist party. Fielding candidates in the Terai region by leaving previous constituencies has backfired for them. There may be some logic to their argument that they wanted to be a legitimate force in Terai by fielding prominent candidates there. But, that claim is doubtful. Leaving their previous constituencies for new ones could simply be a risk-averse behavior. They may have been afraid of losing from the same constituencies this time around due to unfulfilled promises they made in the last round.

Ever since gaining majority in 2008, the Maoist party has been more involved in power sharing dynamics than in actually fulfilling the pledges it made to Nepali people. Nepalis gave them a mandate in 2008 to see what changes they could bring. Their only major achievement to date has been to get rid of monarchy and nothing more. While the party itself has to be commended for trying to bringing itself more to the center of the political spectrum, it has not been able to meet people’s expectations. People remembered how the party mishandled compensation payments of its retired combatants. Many combatants classified as “disqualified” felt betrayed by their party. The party’s image also took a beating when it could not rein its rogue ‘dash’ faction in the run up to the election.

UML and Nepali Congress have started filling the streets with victory rallies. However, they need to understand that this is not actually their victory but the Maoists’ and the Madhesis’ loss. They won because they were the least divisive political forces, and not because they were the most exciting option. These parties are still controlled by old, grey-haired, male, upper caste men who do not represent the young, diverse and dynamic Nepali population whose median age is 21 years. While no Nepali citizen disapproves of federalism, the Maoists, Madhesis and other political forces lost resoundingly because their stances on ethnic and identity based federalism are too divisive. Public perception surveys conducted in the last few years consistently show that over 70% of Nepalis consider themselves “Nepali” first before considering themselves to be a Bahun, Chhetri, Magar, Madhesi, Hindu, Muslim or Christian. Because ethnic and identity actors incorrectly played the ethnic and identity card, it cost them dearly in this election. There is no better explanation.

Already, losers have rejected the results, the counting process, and have voiced to refrain from participating in the upcoming Constituent Assembly. It appears that the UML and Congress will have to form the new government. They need to be humble, set aside their differences, and work together to form the new government. They also need to understand that their mandate is to deliver a constitution first. Madhav Nepal has already expressed his desires to become a Prime Minister, again. That is exactly the kind of selfish indulgent behavior that UML and NC leaders need to avoid at the moment. Despite the drubbing that ethnic and identity actors got from their constituencies, ethnicity and identity remain to be important issues in Nepal’s federalism designs. Therefore, it is imperative that UML and Congress continue to engage the Maoists, Madhesis and all other forces in any and all constitution and federalism related discussions.

UML and NC have been presented with a great opportunity to forge a new Nepal. If they squander this opportunity, they will be the sore losers in the next election. If results of this current election have made anything clearer, it is time everyone learns this lesson. In the meantime, the Maoist party and others need to start engaging in self-reflection to identify where they went wrong. This wasn’t their first election campaign, and it won’t be their last. They need to learn their lesson and come back stronger the next time.

Labels: election