Submit your Article

Of late, a very intense and interesting discourse is taking place in Nepal among the intellectuals, academicians and politicians over the present electoral system in general and the proportional representation (PR) system in particular. Some intellectuals and politicians associated with big political parties are arguing against the present PR system by portraying it as a ‘main cause’ of frequent changes in government. They are trying to spread the message that the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system is the only way to ensure stable governance in the country. But their line of argument is scientifically and democratically unjustified, incorrect and against the concept of inclusive democracy, something which our Constitution has upheld.

The context: Before the introduction of a mixed electoral system, Nepal was practicing the FPTP system. After decades-long practice, the country opted for a mixed electoral system to minimize the demerits of the FPTP system, mainly in view of the role of money, muscles and caste factors in the elections. Inclusivity or mainstreaming of marginalized communities, groups and regions, a mandate of the 12-point understanding signed between the then Seven-Party Alliance and the Maoist rebels in 2005, the Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA) signed in 2006, the Interim Constitution and TOR documents of the ‘revolution’, was another factor behind a switch to the mixed system.

Discourse during statute-drafting: As a member of the then Constituent Assembly (CA) and one of the active members of the Constitution Drafting Committee, let me recall that there was a hot debate and interactive discussion on the electoral system, and a general agreement in the end that continuing with the FPTP system as the sole electoral system was neither possible nor appropriate. So, the main focus and stress was on the ratio of FPTP and the PR system, though some members sought the FPTP system while some others sought the PR system and not a mix of both. Initially, the PR percentage was 60, which was reduced to 40 percent in the present Constitution.

Positions of political parties: Back then, the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML were for giving more weightage to the FPTP system, whereas the Maoists and Madhes-based parties were for giving more weightage to the PR system. With different arguments and counter-arguments coming, it was a very hot, hard and sometimes unfriendly conversation.

A compromise formula: The present mixed system is a compromise between two schools of thoughts, a marriage between modernity and traditionality, that is, a marriage between inclusive and participatory democracy, and formal democracy (representing a handful of people). Back then, the electoral system was one of the core issues of contention and it was resolved at the last moment of Constitution promulgation.

Causes of instability: The politicians rooting for the elimination of the PR system are trying to convince the people that the PR system is the main cause behind a frequent change of guard. But does this logic hold water? In fact, it’s a false statement and a false premise as the history of governance in Nepal shows along with the history of other countries with similar experiences. 

Let’s look at the contemporary history of Nepal to shed more light on this topic. 

In the general elections held after the restoration of multiparty democracy with constitutional monarchy in 1990 under the FPTP system, the Nepali Congress won a resounding mandate to form a government. But his government collapsed in July 1994, barely three years after its formation as it failed to get a vote in the Parliament regarding the budget, pushing the country into midterm elections. 

History repeated itself as the KP Sharma Oli-led majority government, installed on the basis of the mixed electoral system and supposed to rule for a full five years, collapsed toward the end of July, 2016, hardly nine months after its formation, following the breakup of the coalition.

These examples show that the electoral system has not much to do with the stability of a government or a lack thereof. Rather, stability or instability is a political issue, not necessarily a function of the electoral system. It has more to do with factors like the political leadership of the day, government’s performance and good governance and far less to do with the electoral system. 

The perils and the way forward: Calls for doing away with the mixed system are coming from some short-sighted leaders of big political parties. The ongoing debate over the electoral system is welcome, but the prescription for doing away with the PR system is extremely bad.

Doing away with the PR system, especially with regard to the elections for the House of Representatives, may be counterproductive and may cause political conflict and instability because it is an emotive issue connected with inclusivity and mainstreaming in a multicultural, multiracial, multilingual and multi-geographic country whether class, race, region and gender-related oppression and discrimination persist, among others. An inclusive state is the demand of the time and so is an  inclusive Parliament. Therefore, the PR system must continue. However, it is very important to eliminate the role of money and favoritism in the selection of candidates under the PR system, for which serious discussions are necessary. 

Views are personal. The author can be reached at [email protected]

Kleptocracy, a term etched from the Greek lexicon, combining "kleptes" for thief and "kratos" for rule, paints a somber canvas of governance. It depicts a system where those in power exploit their positions for personal enrichment, draining public coffers through corruption and embezzlement. In Nepal, a nation grappling with persistent political instability and governance challenges, the specter of kleptocracy casts a long shadow, exacerbating social inequalities and impeding developmental progress. This exploration endeavors to dissect the complexities of kleptocracy and its profound impact within Nepal's tumultuous political landscape.

Understanding it 

Kleptocracy epitomizes a distortion of democratic ideals, where public trust is betrayed as officials accumulate wealth and power at the expense of citizens' welfare and national interest. Within such systems, political elites and their allies exploit state institutions and regulatory frameworks to drain public resources, evading accountability and fortifying their grip on power.

Nepal's vulnerability

Nepal's historical narrative, woven with threads of political instability and institutional fragility, provides fertile soil for the seeds of kleptocracy to take root. Rampant corruption and nepotism have entrenched themselves, corroding public trust in state institutions and eroding the foundations of the rule of law.

The nexus

The nexus between political instability and kleptocracy in Nepal is symbiotic, each reinforcing the other in a cycle of dysfunction. Frequent changes in government, protracted political standoffs, and fragmented party politics provide fertile ground for rent-seeking and misappropriation of state resources.

The impacts

Kleptocracy corrodes the fabric of Nepali society, stunting economic growth, exacerbating poverty and widening social disparities. Precious public resources meant for essential services are diverted into the coffers of the corrupt elite, perpetuating cycles of deprivation and disenfranchisement. Moreover, the erosion of trust in state institutions undermines efforts to foster democratic governance, risking perpetual instability and underdevelopment.

Economic crisis

Nepal, a nation ensconced in the heart of the Himalayas, has long been celebrated for its breathtaking vistas and rich cultural tapestry. Yet, beneath this picturesque facade lies a country teetering on the edge of economic collapse, its political foundations shaking. The roots of Nepal's economic malaise run deep, intertwining with systemic issues that have plagued the nation for decades.

Contributing factors

The journey toward Nepal's economic crisis can be traced through its turbulent past, marked by political upheaval, social disparity and natural calamities. The transition from monarchy to democratic republic in 2008 failed to usher in the desired stability and prosperity. Instead, Nepal has been marred by corruption, bureaucratic inertia and a lack of coherent economic policies.

Political Instability: Nepal's political landscape resembles a revolving door, with frequent changes in leadership causing policy inertia and uncertainty. This instability repels foreign investment, stymies economic growth and erodes public faith in the political establishment.

Corruption and governance issues: Corruption runs rampant across various strata of the Nepali society, impeding development endeavors and exacerbating income disparities. Weak governance structures have fostered an environment where corruption thrives, diverting vital resources away from essential public services and infrastructure projects.

Dependency on remittances: Nepal leans heavily on remittances from its vast migrant workforce, particularly those toiling in Gulf nations and Southeast Asia. While remittances have provided a lifeline for many Nepali families, they've also fostered a culture of dependency, stifling domestic entrepreneurship and innovation.

Natural disasters and climate change: Nepal's susceptibility to natural disasters, from earthquakes to floods, poses existential threats to its populace and infrastructure. Climate change compounds these challenges, jeopardizing agriculture, water resources, and overall sustainability.

Underdeveloped infra: Inadequate infrastructure, typified by subpar road networks and limited access to electricity and healthcare, stifles economic progress and hinders the delivery of essential services, particularly to rural communities. This infrastructure deficit deters investment and perpetuates regional disparities.

Economic crisis unfolds: In recent years, Nepal's economic woes have snowballed, culminating in soaring inflation, mounting unemployment and a widening fiscal chasm. The COVID-19 pandemic further exacerbated these vulnerabilities, dealing crippling blows to sectors like tourism and remittances. The resultant economic downturn has plunged many Nepalis deeper into poverty, stoking social unrest and disillusionment with the government's response.

Implications for the political system: The confluence of economic distress and political disenchantment has ignited widespread discontent and clamors for systemic reform. Dissatisfaction with the status quo has emboldened opposition factions and civil society groups, demanding accountability, transparency and substantive change. The fragility of Nepal's political institutions has been laid bare, evoking apprehensions of imminent collapse unless decisive action is taken to address the underlying crises.

The way forward

Resolving Nepal's economic quagmire and averting political meltdown necessitates multifaceted endeavors. Political leaders must prioritize stability and consensus-building, transcending partisan rifts to forge a trajectory toward inclusive growth and sustainable development. Strengthening governance frameworks, combating corruption and investing in critical infrastructure stand as imperatives for laying the groundwork for a resilient economy and a robust democratic ethos.

International collaboration and assistance can play pivotal roles in bolstering Nepal's recovery efforts, offering expertise, resources and investment avenues. However, genuine transformation can only materialize through domestic stakeholders' unwavering commitment to prioritizing Nepali interests above narrow political agendas.

In conclusion, Nepal finds itself at a crossroads, grappling with intertwined crises of economic distress and political uncertainty. The path ahead is fraught with obstacles, yet it is also brimming with opportunities for renewal and rejuvenation. By confronting its underlying challenges head-on and embracing a vision of inclusive and sustainable development, Nepal can emerge revitalized, resilient, and better poised to navigate the complexities of the 21st century.

[email protected]

Multifaceted efforts have been made toward tiger conservation, and Nepal today boasts over 355 tigers in the wild. In 2010, this number was only a third of it—at 121. However, conservation of this umbrella species seems to have created new challenges in human-animal conflict management across the country’s national parks.

Tiger attacks on humans have more than tripled in the last 10-15 years and Nepal seems to be at a crossroads when it comes to managing human-animal balance. Efforts to control this conflict seem to have even challenged the country’s capacity to define development with nature in the balance. On May 14, I visited the Devnagar Tiger Rescue Center in Chitwan and came out with mixed feelings of the direction conservation was headed in Nepal.

The rescue center is primarily meant to keep and conserve ‘troublemaker tigers.’ At the gate, I was told that some 150-200 people have been visiting the center daily since its opening earlier around the Nepali new year. The plan is to reinvest the money raised from ticketing this conservation-tourism effort back into the operations of the rescue center.

All of this was good news, but when I actually went inside, my heart sank. The center seemed too small and cage-like. According to a report published in a daily on May 14, the center covers an area of around 4000 square feet. Separated into two rooms, with indoor and outdoor spaces, two male tigers are kept in this mini-enclosure. I spoke to some of the guides, who had brought in guests, mostly Indians and Nepalis, and one of them mentioned that those running the center ought to accommodate spaces for the tigers to hunt naturally so that when and if the tigers are considered rehabilitate-able into the wild, they can adapt. According to the Wild Tiger Health Project, tigers in rehabilitation should have an enclosure, which is ideally a large (> 0.5 hectare), natural area with good shade trees, plenty of vegetation providing cover, a varying terrain, a pool for bathing and a natural stream system to ensure a clean water supply.

However, I’m really not sure what a rescue center envisions for the rescued  tigers' future, if not rehabilitation into its natural habitat. There is plenty of space around the rescue center to build a larger enclosed nature-like habitat for tigers. I’m assuming it may lack budget, which is the main reason behind the establishment of a small enclosure.

I was also feeling hopeful that ‘conservation tourism’ could actually be quite a larger than life segment for Nepal's tourism industry. But it must be done correctly rather than conveniently. Imagine a tiger in a much larger ‘natural-looking’ space, not immediately visible, guests on binoculars searching, brochures in their pockets that introduce the tigers story and its journey, etc. 

 I must also acknowledge that the government has tried to manage human-animal conflict quite well because rescue centers are only a part of the larger puzzle to conserve and manage flora and fauna in Nepal. Fifty-nine people have died in tiger attacks across various national parks in Nepal since 2018, according to government sources. In 2021-22, tigers killed 21 people, whereas some 10 years ago (2012-13), five human casualties had occurred in the course of conflicts with tigers.

For comparative analysis, more people die because of mosquito bites than tiger attacks in Nepal. According to the Journal of Travel Medicine, mosquito-borne diseases killed more than 55 people in Nepal in 2022. But tigers, not surprisingly, seem to draw more attention, the feline has magnetic charisma, which we must understand and consider in our analysis of human-animal conflict management.

Most tiger attacks have been happening on the outer edges of jungles where weaker tigers roam. Human habitats, which not surprisingly are closing into jungle spaces, mostly witness these encounters. In Meghauli last year, a young mother not even in her 20s died in a tiger attack while foraging the buffer area early in the morning to pluck wild spinach (‘niuro saag’).

Soon after the news of the attack/death spread, locals rioted and demanded park authorities to take the tiger into captivity and relocate the ‘human-eater’. Locals refused to take the body of the young woman out of the jungle until authorities took the tiger away. Local politicians even gain popularity for getting tigers caught and relocated, making tiger attacks a political affair.

Therefore, let’s understand that it is still not too late to envision better rescue and rehabilitation centers. We should  look at the Devnagar rescue center as an example of what is in progress to not only manage human-animal conflict but also an effort to attract quality tourism into a new sphere of “conservation-wildlife tourism” in Nepal. Hopefully, visitors who come to the center will not only be first and last time visitors but wish to be a part of the animals rescue and rehabilitation journey. Hopefully more visitors come for educational purposes and to be a part of quality conservation efforts in Nepal.

It should even be possible to turn the rescue of tigers into a movement. Well-documented visuals and stories through dedicated national broadcasts for conservation tourism could enrich Nepal’s ongoing engagement with tigers. People from across the world could play a part in raising awareness and money to support our government in its efforts to manage human-animal conflict. As Nepal tries to navigate into quality and modern conservation efforts, possibilities are endless, if the right course is taken.

Better shelters and management will surely contribute to a positive conservation tourism sector and attract not only visitors for wildlife tourism (165,000 visitors were recorded at the Chitwan National Park last year), but also for quality wildlife conservation tourism across Nepal's several national parks and conservation areas. However, for the time being, I am left wondering as to what the future holds for the two tigers I saw.

Nepal has a lot of untapped investment potential especially in the areas of infrastructure development, renewable energy, green hydrogen, hydropower, tourism, agri-business, and information and communication technology. Manufacturing is another area where Nepal could attract projects.

KPMG in India has a track record of supporting government agencies on investment promotion programs, business reforms and investment summits. We will be happy to advise the Government of Nepal on the Nepal Investment Summit. For the success of the investment summit, along with inter-ministerial collaboration, laying the platform with a stronger policy environment, effective promotion and targeting investors across key sectors, it will be essential to showcase investable projects that are ready to execute.

The workshop on ‘Unlocking Nepal’s Investment Potential’ organized by KPMG in India, along with the Investment Board Nepal (IBN) in Kathmandu was a precursor to the proposed summit in April. The focus was on promoting private investments, particularly Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), to unlock the country's full potential. The speakers elaborated on potential strategies which could be adopted to reduce compliance burden for investor fraternity and simplify the business processes for obtaining requisite clearances and approvals by investors. Drawing from its extensive experience, KPMG shared success stories from other similar economies and drew parallels to offer indicative actionable recommendations for Nepal. Nepal is on the cusp of transformation, and the workshop concluded with a commitment to enhance the country’s investment climate through legal, procedural, and regulatory reforms.

To foster economic expansion and enhance investment potential in Nepal, a comprehensive strategy should focus on strengthening the policy environment, infrastructure development, regulatory reforms, ensuring ease of doing business, and targeted sector-specific investment promotion. Strengthening key sectors like tourism, technology, renewable energy, green hydrogen, and manufacturing can also play a pivotal role in attracting investors and fostering sustainable economic growth. Additionally, building a business-friendly environment, easing process friction, and encouraging innovation will further contribute to creating an attractive investment climate in Nepal.

There are several areas where India could increase investment in Nepal, particularly in areas of synergies and leveraging learnings from each other in ease of doing business (EODB), managing large programs, and infrastructural development through public-private partnerships (PPPs). By fostering collaboration in key sectors such as renewable energy, green hydrogen, manufacturing, digital public infrastructure, technology centers, agriculture, and tourism infrastructure, services, both nations could drive mutual growth and development. Several factors could contribute to the gap between promised investments and actual outcomes. Identifying and addressing these issues, improving transparency, and ensuring a stable investment climate could help bridge this gap.

The author is CEO of KPMG, India