The Brief: Anurag Acharya and Avinash Karna on Inclusion, Coalitions, and the Power Dynamics behind General Elections 2022

[00:00:06] - [Shreeya Rana]
Namaste and welcome to Pods by PEI, a policy discussion series brought to you by Policy Entrepreneurs Inc. My name is Shreeya Rana. In today's episode, we have my colleagues from PEI, Anurag Acharya and Avinash Karna to talk about our recently published brief on Nepal's upcoming federal and provincial elections. Anurag is our director of practice with a background in international relations and journalism. He's a well known political commentator and has written extensively on Nepal and South Asia for national and international publications.

[00:00:40] - [Shreeya Rana]
Avinash is our coordinator of subnational programs. He has a decade long experience working in the areas of peace building and governance. The three of us discussed the key trends that we observed in our run up to the upcoming general elections. These observations are based on PEI's ongoing subnational research on federalism in Nepal, done in collaboration with the SOAS University of London. The research tracks issues of inclusion and representation, the nature of political alliances, the nexus of business and politics, and how this warrants a more vigilant role of the election commission.

[00:01:24] - [Shreeya Rana]
Welcome to you both. For those of you who've been following Pods by PEI, you may already know Anurag as a host of several of our previous episodes. So Anurag, how does it feel to be on the other side of the mic?

[00:01:36] - [Anurag Acharya]
I'm very excited, Shreya. Thank you.

[00:01:38] - [Shreeya Rana]
I'm definitely looking forward to it. We also have a second guest today, Avinash. A warm welcome to Avinash as well.

[00:01:45] - [Avinash Karna]
Thanks, Shreeya, for having me here.

[00:01:47] - [Shreeya Rana]
So let's begin by talking about PEI's subnational research, which is presented in the election brief. Anurag, could you please explain the premises of the research and give us some idea about the methodology and the rationale of the research?

[00:01:59] - [Anurag Acharya]
Well, the research is our ongoing effort to understand how the political settlement is panning out at the subnational levels after the last two decades of political and social movements. Usually, we talk about the constitutional changes and power alignments at the national levels, but we do not pay sufficient attention to the broader changes that are happening in our society at large. Now this is where shifts in power and control over resources are taking place with various groups, whether they are ethnic, religious, professional, or even political interacting in a very, very contested space. Our research looks at these contestations, identifying major actors, tracing their horizontal and vertical networks of patron and clients to analyse their role and influence in the political settlement. We've developed certain variables and qualifiers based on a theoretical framework, a political settlement lens prepared by colleagues at SOAS University of London, professors Mushtaq Khan and Pallavi Roy, who are part of this research.

[00:02:59] - [Anurag Acharya]
I feel elections are crucial to understanding the settlement process as it sort of acts as a periodic test for each of the actors, whether they are political or social, exercising their influence and also determines their limits or access to formal institutions of power and resources affecting their ability to consolidate and expand.

[00:03:21] - [Shreeya Rana]
Avinash, I know you've been leading the data and information collection for this brief. Maybe you could tell us a little more about, you know, the process of how you collected this data and how all the information was gathered?

[00:03:34] - [Avinash Karna]
Sure, To understand how the inclusive provisions are being carried forward in federal settings we have gathered the candidate information of both federal and provincial level from election commission and disaggregated it by gender, ethnicity, age groups, and political parties. To ensure the accuracy in ethnic disaggregation and classification, we engaged our provincial colleague and then analyzed the data to see how gender and ethnic groups are representing at provincial and federal level, especially in the major political parties including Nepali Congress, UML, Maoist Center, Unified Socialist, and Rastriya Prajatantra Party. And at sub national level, we have disaggregated the data of PSP, LSP and Nagarik Unmukti Party.

[00:04:25] - [Shreeya Rana]
That is a very extensive process, I must say, Avinash. And I'm glad that you touched upon gender and caste and inclusion. We also just recently released an episode on the gendered election process where I guess she spoke about how it's the same set of people that are claiming representation through elections. As you know the candidacy criteria is still very ageist and it still values experience over merit. Now your analysis while it supports most of these claims it also goes on to further state and I quote from the brief, days of the septuagenarian leaders ruling the roost may well be over in Nepali politics.

[00:05:05] - [Shreeya Rana]
Anrad, could you tell us more about what this means and how this would impact Nepali politics?

[00:05:11] - [Anurag Acharya]
Well, we need to look at this from both long term and short term, you know, perspective and then indications are there. Yes. Our election process is very gendered with mostly men in privileged position of social and political hierarchy repeatedly occupying formal institutions of power and being in decision making capacity. Capacity. There is a reason for that.

[00:05:35] - [Anurag Acharya]
Nepali politics had for a long time been an exclusive domain with women and people of marginalized ethnicity and backgrounds struggling to break into the top tier of that space despite being strongly mobilized as foot soldiers in in the past social and political movements, whether it's anti Rana autocracy movement, whether it's a movement against the Panchayat, the Maoist movement, or the social and political movements post 2008. But that seems to be changing slowly but definitely changing and largely due to political representation guaranteed for women and the marginalized groups in the interim constitution of 2007 and subsequently the 2015 constitution. Despite not having groomed sufficient number of women, minorities, and leaders from ethnically marginalized groups, political parties have been forced to fill them through PR lists in the last three election cycle. As a result, what it has done is it has given voice to those constituencies and even helped bring out some leadership. And that voice will now only grow stronger forcing the political parties to check exclusion within their ranks.

[00:06:47] - [Anurag Acharya]
And then there are short term indications. We see a level of frustration among the common public, especially youths who are tired of the repeated scandals and petty power game involving same set of leaders across different political parties. So it's not surprising that a country with such a young population are now demanding new faces to represent them, which is something that has come out very strongly even in our election brief. You will see that many senior leaders across different political parties have now conceded candidacy to younger leaders. Some have even chosen to be included in the PR list.

[00:07:27] - [Anurag Acharya]
Whether or not many of the new faces will actually be voted in is is a different matter because that depends on a combination of factors like alliances, agendas, and relative advantages. But it does indicate a definite shift.

[00:07:41] - [Shreeya Rana]
Anurag, you talk about contestations for political representation. Could you tell us more about how these contestations have played out particularly in Tarai Madhesh politics?

[00:07:52] - [Anurag Acharya]
Well, our provincial political settlement research actually began with Madhesh Pradesh because we feel this is one of the most interesting provinces to look at in terms of how the past and present movements have shaped the social and political landscape here. This is the land where demographically less than 3% of the so called upper caste who are also the landed class, have had disproportionate access to power and control over resources. That has been protected and legitimized by Kathmandu's centralized administration, which again is run by hill caste groups. The Madhesh movement was instrumental in Nepal becoming a federal nation, which ended Hill administration's political patronage to certain caste and class of people. Now the political representation accessed by Yadavs and non Yadav OBCs have made them a decisive force in Tarai Madhesh politics lately, with strong leadership emerging.

[00:08:49] - [Anurag Acharya]
But other groups like Madheshi Dalits, Tharus and Muslims have yet to organise themselves to develop into a strong political constituencies despite the demographic strength they possess. We've mentioned this to a great extent in our provincial political settlement paper, will be coming out shortly. But we also mentioned some of this in our upcoming election brief.

[00:09:12] - [Shreeya Rana]
Coming back to you, Avinash, in the local elections brief, which was published in May, you mentioned that several of the mayoral candidates were actually won with a significant majority in the last local elections. They didn't even get a repeat candidacy during this election. Now what do you think this means? Like, why do you think this happened? And do you think this is also happening at the federal and the provincial elections as well?

[00:09:37] - [Avinash Karna]
Based on our own observations of limited number of local government units across three provinces, we believe the candidacy was determined by three factors. Number one, approval of the parties, municipal, and district committee members and their political pattern at the provincial and federal level who may or may not assess the performance of the mayor. And number two, providing a space to the competing aspirants in the party who had considered their candidacy in the previous elections. And number three, and most importantly, capability of the aspirants to manage election expenses and chances of winning. The eventual candidacy list that we saw reflected all these factors.

[00:10:25] - [Avinash Karna]
The rules are same even for the provincial and federal levels, but the good thing is the need to be more inclusive and pressure from next generation of leaders have forced many senior leaders to concede their candidacy in different political parties. A common factor between the local elections and the upcoming parliamentary election needs. Many aspirants who lost out in the candidacy due to alliance accommodation or some other reason have rebelled as independents or even switched party to contest.

[00:10:59] - [Shreeya Rana]
I'm glad, Avinash, that you brought up the element of alliance. And talking about alliances, the Maoists are aligning with the Nepali Congress, the UML aligning with the RPP. Now these aren't political parties that have historically seen eye to eye, especially in terms of ideology. Even Janta Samajwadi party and the Loktantrik Samajwadi party switched sides at the last moment. Now how do we make sense of all of this?

[00:11:22] - [Anurag Acharya]
Well, we do understand the need for alliances in the modern day multiparty political system, don't we? I mean, it does lend a degree of political stability. But then there has to be some basis to forge any electoral alliance. So you look at India where the ruling national Democratic Alliance has remained together with very few defections to congress led UPA, which is an alliance based largely on secular agendas opposed to NDA's BJP, which champions Hindutva politics. Now look at NC allying with the Maoist who were until very recently deep in love with their UML comrades, and and you you wonder if there is any concrete basis to that alliance besides the leaders dragging their party along just to outdo one another.

[00:12:10] - [Anurag Acharya]
Otherwise, how do you explain alliance between UML and Upendra Yadav's JSP who don't even see eye to eye on several constitutional issues, including on federalism and crucial citizenship bill. So if you ask me how do I make sense of all this, my reply is it's election politics. It's temporary and based on short term bargains.

[00:12:32] - [Shreeya Rana]
Alliances are indeed opportunistic in nature, but do you also think that this has impacted the candidate selection process, Avinash?

[00:12:38] - [Avinash Karna]
I have already mentioned how aspiring leaders have filed independent candidacy or switched sides in many places. But there is also anger and discontent among caters and party leaders who aren't necessarily contesting as candidates but are engaged in the political campaigning. They feel conflicted in their loyalty for the party and having to campaign for rival candidates with whom there is little ideological or agenda based affinity. Like Anurag mentioned, it is a short term arrangement for the top leaders, but for the cadres on the ground, it is politically a difficult experience.

[00:13:23] - [Shreeya Rana]
Another notable observation in your pre election brief, it it is the entry of business people into mainstream politics. Now is this being played out in terms of who gets candidacy and what would be the impact of this after elections?

[00:13:39] - [Anurag Acharya]
Well, to begin with, I believe politics is and should remain open for all sections of the population and business community do have a legitimate stake in that political process. Industrialists and businesses have always supported political parties based on their own beliefs and leaning. Some have even contested polls to advance the agendas on behalf of the business community and to protect their legitimate interest. There's nothing wrong with that. Where it gets tricky is when it becomes difficult to distinguish personal interest from a collective good.

[00:14:13] - [Anurag Acharya]
When a politician, businessman or not, advances agendas that benefit a small group of people at the expense of others, and all this happens through a legitimate parliamentary process, I feel that is the biggest challenge our political system is currently facing. Instead of inclusive politics driving economic growth and social changes and consequently benefiting various sections, including the business community, it is the money supplied from the businesses that is driving our politics. In that sense, business is becoming engine of our political system including the election process. And that is extremely worrying because those that control the flow of money then are able to control the policy and governance spaces. Avinash, you know how this is impacting local politics.

[00:15:02] - [Anurag Acharya]
Maybe you can explain that.

[00:15:04] - [Avinash Karna]
This is absolutely correct. If one looks at the local politics, the way political parties have fielded candidates, it is not difficult to see that increasingly local contractors and businesses have made a transition from supporting political parties to influencing their candidacy selection. In many cases, becoming candidates and benefiting from local government contracts and even responsible for plundering of natural resources. At the federal level, we have mentioned, in the brief how certain parliamentarians who have business interest were decisive in drafting or making changes in the bills, For example, on education or on health.

[00:15:48] - [Shreeya Rana]
So you've talked about this nexus at both federal and the sub national levels. Now how do you think this will impact elections in Nepal? And what has the role of the election commission of Nepal been in this regard to make sure that the elections are fairly conducted? As you can see that we've already seen trending hashtags like no not again, this has worried the election commission. Do you think we're going down the line where people may reconsider whether or not they want to vote?

[00:16:16] - [Anurag Acharya]
It's a good question and something that should haunt us as a as common citizens who are going to vote in the next few days. We need to ask ourselves, are we actually exercising our sovereign rights or are we simply becoming a rubber stamp for a small group who are running this country like their five term? To election commission's credit, it has indeed stepped up and is trying to discourage candidates from overspending in order to create some kind of level playing field for the candidates. I mean, there had been some criticisms, you know, of election commission as well, but that's quite understandable. And it and election commission has also been monitoring the use of social media to prevent negative campaigning and the spread of disinformation.

[00:17:02] - [Anurag Acharya]
These are all positive changes, but we also need to look at the broader political process and the culture that drives our politics. I see some encouraging changes there too. I've said earlier, political parties are forced to be more inclusive in their candidacy selection. More women and marginalised sections are being represented, but it's simply not enough. The fact that political parties are not rewarding or penalizing aspirants based on their past performances in office or their public approval has angered voters.

[00:17:33] - [Anurag Acharya]
The same set of senior leaders have occupied positions at the top of political parties and the government, which is also quite frustrating for the voters. The anonymously run hashtags like no not again campaign is a manifestation of that, which is worrying for the electoral process and the voter turnout. And it can also be used to drive negative campaign against political opponents.

[00:17:57] - [Shreeya Rana]
Now that we're coming to the end of the episode, there's one last question for the both of you. You seem to indicate that voters may lose interest in the election process if this situation persists. Now what do you think can be done to instill that faith in the electoral system or to even strengthen it?

[00:18:15] - [Anurag Acharya]
Well, I feel the election commission must, take a hard look at not just the election process, but our entire political process leading up to the elections. From where I see it, there is no constitutional or legal checks to prevent conflict of interest among those occupying public office. From a parliamentarian to a cabinet minister to the commission member holding constitutional offices, we we need a strong law that prevents not just people with conflicting interests from holding these offices, but also specific checks that bar them from participating in the policy making or decision making where their interests are conflicted. What this will do is it will gradually discourage interest groups from controlling policy making and decision making spaces. I have nothing against external lobbying, but they cannot be part of the formal process.

[00:19:07] - [Anurag Acharya]
At the moment, I feel the money being pumped into the political and electoral processes actually helping certain interest groups from capturing the policymaking and decision making spaces, which the media has also been indicating as a policy corruption. But then it will be very hard to call it out unless we have a definite law that allows us to say that this is illegal.

[00:19:27] - [Avinash Karna]
I completely agree. If we have such reforms, it can significantly help to filter out people with conflicted interest from controlling local politics, allowing popular leaders with mass base to reclaim their influence in grassroots politics. Perhaps, a lot of discontent and defections from the political parties during the local election were due to whole timers discouraged by parties giving candidacy to individuals with deep pockets. Maybe that's where our politics needs to make correction. Indeed.

[00:20:05] - [Shreeya Rana]
Thank you, Avinash, and thank you Anurag for your valuable insights into the electoral processes.

[00:20:10] - [Anurag Acharya]
Thank you, Shreeya.

[00:20:12] - [Shreeya Rana]
Thank you all for tuning in. You can read the pre election brief on the PEI website. And that's a wrap on today's episode. Thanks for listening to Pods by PEI. I hope you enjoyed my conversation with Anurag and Avinash on some major election observations based on our long term research on federalism, including the issues of inclusion and representation, the nature of political alliances, the nexus of business and how all of this warrants a more vigilant role of the election commission.

[00:20:47] - [Shreeya Rana]
Today's episode was produced by Saurav Lama with support from Nirjan Rai, Khushi Hang and Chhedon Kansakar. The episode was recorded at Mint Audio Studio and edited by Saurav Lama. Our theme music is courtesy of Rohit Shakya from Jindabad. If you liked today's episode, please subscribe to our podcast. Also, please do us a favor by sharing us on social media and leaving a review on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, or wherever you listen to the show.

[00:21:18] - [Shreeya Rana]
For PEI's video related content, please search for policy entrepreneurs on YouTube. To catch the latest from us on Nepal's policy and politics, please follow us on Twitter tweet2pei, that's tweet followed by the number two and PEI, and on Facebook policy entrepreneurs inc. You can also visit pei.center to learn more about us. Thanks once again from me, Shreeya Rana. We'll see you soon in our next episode.