Nepal Election Monitoring | Issue 2

Inclusion and proportional representation in Nepal’s 2026 elections
________________Debates around electoral inclusion have once again come to the forefront as Nepal heads toward the House of Representatives (HoR) elections scheduled for March 2026. The discussion was reignited following the submission of political parties’ initial proportional representation (PR) candidate lists at the end of December 2025—lists that, for many, fell short of the constitutional spirit and mandate of proportional representation.A closer look at the submitted PR lists revealed a troubling pattern across both established and newer political parties. Individuals from economically and politically well-connected families dominated the lists, with mainstream parties nominating relatives, loyalists, and favourites over representatives from historically marginalised communities. This trend directly contradicts the core purpose of the PR system. Constitutionally, the PR mechanism was introduced as a corrective measure to address long-standing exclusion from political power. It was designed to ensure meaningful representation of women, Dalits, Indigenous nationalities, Madhesis, persons with disabilities, sexual and gender minorities, and other excluded groups who face structural barriers in accessing mainstream politics.

However, political parties have increasingly treated PR lists as tools of political accommodation rather than inclusion. The Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), for instance, included celebrities and business figures in its PR list—possibly reflecting its limited grassroots reach and organisational depth. Similarly, the Nepali Congress (NC) included senior leaders and relatives of top political figures such as Arjun Narsingh KC and former defence minister Bhimsen Das Pradhan among others. In response to mounting public pressure—particularly on social media— many candidates also withdrew their name ahead of the deadline to finalise the closed PR lists. Particularly, 85 candidates across different political parties have withdrawn their names.

The growing discontent around lack of inclusion with political parties’ practices also stand in sharp contrast to the recent 10-point agreement between Gen-Z groups and the government, which explicitly calls for the institutionalisation of inclusion and the rejection of tokenistic representation. The current conduct of parties suggests a widening gap between the aspirations of youth-led movements and the realities of party politics.

Moreover, the concerns around inclusion are even more pronounced within the First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) system. With political parties set to finalise their FPTP candidate lists this week, early indications have been discouraging. Despite constitutional guarantees, marginalised communities—particularly women—continue to be sidelined in competitive constituencies. Nepal’s Constitution mandates that at least one-third of members of the federal parliament must be women. While parties are permitted to fulfil this requirement through PR if they fall short under FPTP, this provision has increasingly been used as a fallback rather than an exception. This practice has normalised the idea that women and marginalised groups are suitable primarily for proportional seats, while “winnable” constituencies remain dominated by elite, male, and politically entrenched candidates.

Now as the deadline for finalising candidates approaches, political parties face a decisive moment. Their choices will signal whether inclusion remains a constitutional checkbox—or a genuine democratic commitment reflected across electoral systems. Meaningful political reform cannot be realised if foundational principles such as inclusion are routinely compromised. Nepal cannot afford to allow new political movements or moments of reform to undermine the hard-won gains of past democratic struggles.