Any party might say – let’s increase the weight for gender and inclusive governance or decrease it in some other indicator. However, to say that the procedure itself is wrong and we do not accept it is irresponsible and unconstitutional behavior.

It is easy to tell others to ‘follow the rules’, but it is difficult to bind oneself to the rules. This requires honesty. Those who do not have the intention to work with honesty try to escape various excuses when it is their turn to follow the rules.In the case of the ‘Political Party Self-Evaluation Procedure’, our parties have shown this same character. The Election Commission had sent a ‘self-evaluation procedure’ to the parties a few days ago for assessing their internal condition.

This is called the ‘Political Party Self-Evaluation Procedure – 2082’. However, instead of welcoming it, the parties opposed it. The opposition was also not based on any facts but rather on assumptions.The very name of the procedure is ‘Self-Evaluation Procedure’. In this, the administrators or anyone else do not assign scores. It is a method for the parties to evaluate their own status. To ensure uniformity among all parties, the Election Commission drafted the procedure, which was prepared according to the provisions of the ‘Political Party Act – 2073’.

But the parties protested, saying that ‘the administrator of the Election Commission is trying to regulate the parties.’ Interestingly, not only the old parties but also the so-called new parties stood in line with the old parties and agreed on this matter. Another surprise was that political activists and civil society were mostly silent on this issue.

Regulation and evaluation of political parties in a multiparty system is an extremely important issue. Only if political parties become transparent and accountable can transparency and accountability be maintained in the state system as well. Therefore, such a procedure should have been introduced long ago. Parties themselves should have made efforts to bring this procedure as quickly as possible. Currently, although late, the Election Commission has prepared a draft on this subject. However, even the aspects that should be welcomed have risen up in opposition. This case has made one thing clear: all types of parties, whether old or new, are unwilling to make themselves accountable.

What is there in the self-assessment methodology?

The practice of self-assessing the functioning of local governments and some other state bodies is still ongoing. For instance, the ‘Self-Assessment Methodology of Institutional Capacity of Local Levels 2077’ is still in practice. This draft was prepared by the administrators themselves. To date, there has been no mention of any party opposing such methodologies. Opposition has only arisen when there was a need to be accountable for their own daily operations.

The Political Party Self-Assessment Procedure 2082 helps to evaluate the internal condition of all types of parties, whether small or large, new or old. It is not made easier for large parties or difficult for small ones, nor is any administrator responsible for the evaluation.Twenty-five minimum criteria and indicators have been set for self-assessment. Separate indicators have been specified for certain subjects and areas, and those indicators have been assigned specific weightages. There are 8 points in organizational structure, 22 in internal management, 15 in party responsibility, 10 in gender and inclusive management, 20 in fund management and auditing, 15 in electoral participation and representation, and 10 in other arrangements related to political parties, totaling a maximum score of 100.

There are 6 indicators in the organizational structure. Similarly, there are 14 in internal management, 8 in party responsibilities, 7 in gender and inclusive management, 15 in party funds, financial management, and auditing, 15 in electoral participation and representation, and 10 in other arrangements related to political parties, making a total of 75 indicators.Each party must conduct its own assessment according to this procedure and submit a report to the Election Commission within three months of the end of the financial year.

How is self-assessment done?

For the minimum criteria, there are two options (present-absent) and three options for each subject indicator – excellent, medium, and poor. The weight of these two and three types of options for each indicator has also been clarified. However, guessing is not allowed in selecting options. Under what circumstances should which option be chosen? The basis for justification for each indicator has also been specified.

As stated in Condition No. 2 of the Newtonian Clause, there is a mention of the ‘location of the central office of the party’. One must choose between two options (existing or not existing). Based on this confirmation, it specifies ‘address of the central office, name of the contact person, phone number (including landline), email, and website’. If it is possible to display all these details, you can mark the ‘existing’ option; otherwise, you cannot.

Now let’s look at the method of self-assessment in the field of organizational structure. In its indicator No. 1, it is stated that ‘the organizational structure of the team and the arrangement of office bearers should be mentioned in the constitution.’ For this, three options have been set – excellent, medium, and poor. The score for excellent is 2, for medium is 1.5, and for poor is 0.5.

For Grade 2 (Excellent), it is stated based on verification that ‘there is a record of organizational structure and officials in the constitution and implemented structure.’ For Grade 1.5 (Moderate), it is stated based on verification that ‘the organizational structure and officials are provided in the constitution but have only been partially implemented.’ For Grade 0.5 (Low), it is stated based on verification that ‘there is a provision in the constitution but no implementation has taken place.’

Whatever is the status of your party, the party has to mark the option accordingly. Marking all indicators results in a self-assessment of a total of 100 integers. If the score between 80 and 100 is considered ‘very-good’, if it comes from 55 to 80, ‘best’, if it comes from 25.5 to 55, ‘moderate’ and if it comes from 0 to 25.5, it will be considered ‘low’.

All indicators are related to the internal life of the party. No one from outside comes to evaluate it. The responsible person of the party should sit and do this work. There is no separate cost for this. Big parties will get more marks and smaller parties will not get less marks. On the contrary, smaller parties may get more marks in some questions.

The Role of Numbers

What benefit does a party with a large number of votes get? What disadvantage does a party with fewer votes face? There is currently no mention of this arrangement. It is again up to the parties to clarify further. That is, whether to provide certain facilities to a party with a large number of votes or not must be established through legislation by Parliament. This question is not to be determined by the Election Commission.

Getting a high score in self-assessment is fundamentally a matter of the party’s moral strength. If a party scores well, it has the opportunity to boast that we are a transparent and accountable party. It can win the trust of the voters by conveying this message. If a party scores poorly, it should take this as a learning opportunity and immediately improve its system. It is not said that a party that gets a low score will always remain in that state. Any party has an equal opportunity to improve its system and become the ‘best party’ in the following year. However, when giving speeches externally, some parties may talk about grand ideals, while internally they never remain accountable and transparent; this process will expose such parties. Such hypocritical parties are not essential for the country.

Limits of the Procedure

This procedure certainly has some limitations. However, contrary to what the parties claim, there is no provision in the procedure for parties to exercise administrative control or to put smaller parties in difficulty. Rather, on some necessary matters that are not mentioned in the constitution and laws, this procedure remains silent.

Currently, the constitution does not provide a mechanism for all parties to operate their internal systems under a single framework. There is no provision to prevent individuals with ‘conflicts of interest’ from participating in elections. There is also no provision that allows voters to recall elected individuals if deemed necessary. Due to such shortcomings in the constitution, several other crucial topics required for the self-evaluation of parties have not been included in the procedural framework. Only by adding such topics to the constitution and laws can they be incorporated into the procedural framework. However, the procedural framework that has been established seems to align with the spirit of the current constitution and laws.

Yes, parties can say to reconsider the subject areas and the allocated weightage for them. For example, 22 marks are assigned for internal management and 10 marks for gender and inclusive management. A party might say – let’s increase the weightage for gender and inclusive management or decrease it in another indicator. However, to say that the procedure itself is wrong and we do not accept it is irresponsible and unconstitutional behavior.

The parties have opposed the self-assessment procedure and protested against the constitution and the Political Parties Act 2073 that they themselves created. This incident has brought to light a serious fact – all the so-called new or old parties are, from a character perspective, on the same page, wanting to run the country through assumptions and manipulation.In summary, it is necessary for new parties that believe in the system and uphold the system to emerge for the upcoming leadership of the country.