Make election spending transparent, avoid extravagant campaigning

During the consultation, the EC proposed Rs 1.44 million as the election expenditure ceiling for the candidates fielding themselves under the first-past-the-post (FPTP) category of the federal parliament, while those fielding in the provincial assembly could spend half the amount set for those of the federal parliament.

Similarly, for the contenders under the proportional category in the federal level, the amount set for expenditure is Rs 150,000; while for the provincial level it is Rs 75,000.

It was learnt that most of the leaders attending the consultation showed objection to the proposal of election expenditure ceiling, arguing that it was quite meagre, and impractical. However, leaders of the fringe parties argued that if the ceiling was implemented effectively, it would help clean election malaise.

A day after EC’s consultation with political parties, a daily newspaper wrote in its editorial, ‘The election spending of a candidate aspiring to be the Ward Chair ranges from Rs 1 million to Rs 10 million. All political parties know it well. The election candidate and his/her rival do not speak anything against it, because both of them are involving in the extravagant use of money. Both sides know it that they are violating the election code of conduct.’ The editorial further wondered how meaningful the election code of conduct is while all sides- from State to voters- are violating it.
Not only the media, but also the political parties themselves admitted the excessive use of money in election which deterred many low-economic status leaders from becoming election candidates in the first and second rounds of local level elections. To substantiate here- Chairman of CPN (Maoist Centre), Pushpa Kamal Dahal, after handing over government leadership to NC President Sher Bahadur Deuba, repeatedly said the election was costly, so the fully proportional electoral system should be adopted hereafter.

Needless to say, election as free media and independent judiciary is a significant pillar of democracy. Election not only gives victory to the good and dear one to the people but also punishes those awarding defeat, for their wrong precedents and poor images. Election result is however determined by various factors including party’s policy and programs, organizational strength, public trust and faith, track record of development and cooperation, number of cadres, well-wishers and sympathizers.

But the absence of free and fair elections is serious threat to democracy. Use of money and muscle not only causes rigging but also frustrates people and erodes trust on politics and political parties. Despite the ceiling set by EC, the political parties and election candidates are found making their election campaigns extravagant. Excessive use of money to lure the voters, the election campaigns turn into big festivals and carnivals as the editorial suggests. It is sure certain amount of money is needed to the candidate for the publicity, but buying voters on the run up to the election is the detestable phenomena of Nepal’s election.

Here arises a question- where does the money come from for the extravagant electioneering? Who are bribing the political parties in election? And, how they earn money to serve the political parties?

Election expenditure must be transparent. As the political parties are the public entities, they must not keep in secret the source of money and its spending. But, the double standard of the political parties in this regard is afflicting Nepali elections- they advocate for transparency, good governance, accountability and empowerment, which are limited to words. Their activities hardly prove it.

Another important aspect of costly election is barring common people from involving in the election. It is indeed against democracy. If the election system serves already served and already privileged, what’s its meaning? The electoral extravagance is spoiling the system that erodes achievements.

To this regard, political scientist Dr CD Bhatt observed, “Nepali political parties are yet to study well the democracy and development together and act accordingly. We’ve not developed the infrastructures of democracy in Nepal.”

As he said, election is one of the infrastructures of democracy. Has the time not come for Nepali political parties to mull it? Anyway, it is laudable that the country has witnessed election in two decade’s gap. Election is a step to ensure procedural democracy. It helps to bring periodic stability for the country. Nepal is in need of substantive democracy for long. For this practices of the procedural democracy must be transparent, convincing and accountable. Everything cannot be granted in the name of transition. A strong watch on political parties is therefore essential.