Tentative conclusions on democracy & governance
-
Nepal Maoists outdo expectations under FPP; CA majority likely up for grabs
According to trickling election results, Nepal’s former rebels have outdone their own expectations under the country’s mixed-member electoral law. In the spirit of prediction, Nepal’s numerous small parties are likely to hold sway in the coming Constituent Assembly.
UPDATE: April 22’s Reuters backs my rough projection of yesterday. Headline: “Maoists lead as Nepal heads for hung assembly.”
Of 601 seats in the coming constituent assembly, 240 are elected under first-past-the-post, 335 under nationwide closed-list PR, and the Council of Ministers appoints 261 “from amongst the persons of high reputation who have rendered significant contribution in national life.”2 There does not appear to be a PR threshold.
Late last year, Maoist leaders began threatening to boycott the elections a third time unless status quo parties agreed to use closed-list PR nationwide. I speculated that they might even benefit from FPP rules given their rural base, but Bob in the comments noted a poll indicating they’d lose handily.
With all but one seat counted, however, Maoists have taken 120 of 240 seats in the FPP tier.
As of yesterday, PR tier results were still pending in 23 districts.
Deputies from the country’s southern Madhesi community are also poised to win a sizable share. Shortly after the Maoists agreed to the mixed system, Madhesi groups issued similar demands for PR rules.
I have done some rough calculations with current data from the election commission. If PR seats were allocated using a Hare quota/largest remainder formula based on results downloaded 13:30 eastern time:
Maoists: 101 seats
Nepali Congress: 72 seats
United Marxist-Leninist: 69 seats
Madhesi (2 lists): 30 seats
Other: 63 seatsTwo Madhesi parties hold 29 and 9 seats, respectively. Assuming the Maoists and Madhesis form a coalition of sorts, they would be at 289 seats by these calculations. 301 is a majority. This scenario would give the 63 elected from “other” parties kingmaker status.
Based, of course, on assumptions about the allocation rules.
- IHT reports that 335 seats are elected under PR. Earthtimes.org agrees. That would leave 26 seats for eminent persons. I do not know whether the IHT or election law, which breaks the tiers down 240/240/17, is correct.
- Election Commission of Nepal, Ch. 2, Constituent Assembly Election Act (PDF – 254k).
2 responses to to “Nepal Maoists outdo expectations under FPP; CA majority likely up for grabs”
-
The Maoists could have won that many SSDs only by winning well beyond their base, right? (And likely in such areas, against divided opposition.) I don’t think any reporting on the war ever claimed they held areas accounting for close to half the population.
Or perhaps the districts were significantly malapportioned to favor the areas they dominated during the war? That actually seems rather unlikely (politically).
-
Based on that survey Bob found, probably yes, with the continued caveat that data on party ID did not exist. (There had not been an election where the Maoists contested.) The Maoists not only outperformed expectations; they outperformed a projection of 10% in the nominal tier.
They also campaigned with a message of standing up for the oppressed. Nepal is a divided society, and much of the political elite had been around for a long time. So it is furthermore reasonable to suspect broad support.
I agree about the political unlikelihood of malapportionment. UML-Maoist, after all, was protesting SSDs in any proportion. Democracy groups and Koirala’s coalition must have had to demonstrate fairness to bring them on board.
According to ACE, the only boundary delimitation criterion equal population with some toleration of malapportionment for underpopulated areas. But this is under the 1990 constitution. Information on the most recent redistricting is in Nepalese.
Leave a reply
Recent Comments