Nepalis often respond ambivalently when asked about a pair of systems—the three-tier federalism and the proportional representation electoral model—adopted after Nepal ushered in a federal, inclusive, democratic republic following the success of the 2006 People’s Movement. In principle, they agree that devolving power to sub-national governments is necessary to end the old trend of Kathmandu-centric decision-making. Yet many still see provinces as unnecessary. A similar contradiction can be seen over the PR electoral system. While its broader inclusive framework is widely appreciated for increasing representation across state institutions, lawmakers picked through the PR category are widely resented. This public dislike is not the result of flaws inherent in the system. Rather, it stems from the system’s repeated misuse by political parties in the past 17 years.

Nepal has completed four election cycles under the mixed electoral system—a combination of First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) and PR—in 2008, 2013, 2017 and 2022. The experiences of candidate selection during these cycles have steadily eroded public trust in the PR. The recent submission of PR lists by political parties to the Election Commission has only intensified public doubt. The PR system was introduced to bring women, Dalits, marginalised communities, backward groups and persons with disabilities into decision- and policy-making roles. Its spirit is to create a level playing field for those who struggle to win under FPTP, a system dominated by candidates with money and access to state power. However, influential leaders have repeatedly abused this provision by giving priority to their relatives, loyalists and business tycoons. For instance, the Nepali Congress, in the past, selected figures such as Arzu Rana Deuba, spouse of party president Sher Bahadur Deuba, and Manju Khand, wife of former home minister Balkrishna Khand, from the category that is for underprivileged people.

Over the past 17 years, a troubling political culture has taken root. Party members increasingly prioritise loyalty to powerful leaders over grassroots work in hopes of securing PR tickets. Those lacking public appeal or organisational strength focus on pleasing party elites instead. At the same time, it has become an open secret that businesspeople gain parliamentary seats by offering huge donations to parties. With the system riddled with such distortions, lawyers moved the Supreme Court, which directed the government and political parties to nominate PR lawmakers in line with the constitution’s spirit. Yet parties appear to have largely ignored the ruling.

As soon as the PR lists were made public this time, both old and new parties came under fierce criticism. Established parties were condemned for repeating old faces such as Nepali Congress’s Arjun Narasingh KC and UML’s Ram Bahadur Thapa, who have repeatedly served as lawmakers and ministers. More disappointing, however, was the conduct of newer political forces, which promised change but are following the same misguided path. RSP leader Toshima Karki publicly criticised her own party for prioritising central leaders while sidelining candidates from Karnali province, a backward region. The party has also picked some candidates of questionable moral character.

Undoubtedly, some PR nominees are genuinely deserving. But a few good picks cannot justify the widespread capture of PR seats by powerful elites. Many recommended candidates may be competent and capable, yet the question is whether they belong in a category meant for the underprivileged and underrepresented. If political parties fail to correct these practices, they risk undermining not just the PR system, but the broader constitutional spirit of the policy of inclusion and social justice.