Spread the love

By Our Reporter

Nepal’s Election Commission tried to do something very simple this election. It asked candidates to open a separate bank account and use it for all campaign money. The idea was basic: if money goes through one clean account, the public can see who spent what. In theory, this should have been easy.

In practice, most candidates treated the rule like a polite suggestion they could safely ignore.

The numbers are blunt. Out of 3,406 candidates contesting the direct elections, only 671 opened the required bank accounts. That is just 21 percent. Nearly four out of five candidates did not follow the directive. When a rule meant to ensure clean politics is ignored by almost 80 percent of contestants, the problem is not technical. It is political culture.

The Election Code of Conduct is clear. Any donation above 25,000 rupees must pass through the special account. Candidates must keep bills and receipts. Spending must stay within the legal ceiling. On paper, Nepal’s election finance rules look perfectly reasonable. On the ground, they are being quietly sidestepped.

Campaign rallies began even before the official 15-day campaign window. Vehicles, door to door visits, and promotional materials are already being used in excess. These are not minor slips. They are open signals that many candidates still believe rules apply mainly to others.

Some candidates argue that opening a new bank account is not practical in remote areas. Geography and banking access are real challenges in parts of Nepal. But this explanation only goes so far. Banking access has expanded widely in recent years. More importantly, many of the same candidates who claim difficulty have no trouble mobilizing large campaign machinery.

Others offer an even thinner excuse. Some candidates reportedly asked why they should open an account when they have no money. That answer might sound clever at a tea shop. It does not inspire confidence in a national election. If a candidate truly has no campaign funds, opening an empty account should be the easiest compliance task imaginable.

Political parties have tried to protect their public image by saying they instructed their candidates to follow the rules. UML says it told everyone. Congress says it sent directions down to the grassroots. Maoist Center candidates say they are complying.

If that were fully true, the compliance rate would not be stuck at 21 percent.

This gap between what party leaders say and what candidates actually do exposes a deeper weakness. Internal discipline inside parties remains weak. Rules are announced from the top, then quietly diluted on the ground. Everyone keeps a straight face and pretends the system is working.

The Election Commission also cannot escape blame. It issued the directive, but enforcement looks soft. So far, there has been no serious action against candidates who ignored spending limits or failed to follow the banking rule. In any regulatory system, rules without consequences quickly lose meaning.

Even more troubling is the Commission’s own data gap. It does not have fully clear public records showing which candidates complied and which did not. When the referee cannot clearly track the players, enforcement becomes more theater than reality.

Nepal has seen this pattern before. Laws are drafted carefully. Speeches praise good governance. Then enforcement fades, and the system returns to business as usual. Election finance is now showing the same symptoms.

The damage goes beyond paperwork. When campaign money remains opaque, it raises obvious questions. Who is funding whom? How much is actually being spent? Are spending limits real or just decorative numbers? These doubts slowly erode public trust.

There is still time to correct course, but only if all sides act seriously. Political parties must enforce discipline among their own candidates, not just issue polite instructions. Candidates must accept that transparency is part of democratic responsibility, not an optional burden. And the Election Commission must show that its directives carry real consequences.

Right now, the message many candidates seem to hear is simple: the rules exist, but nothing much happens if you ignore them.

If that message continues, the dream of clean election financing will remain exactly that, a dream printed nicely in official documents but rarely seen in real campaign behavior. Nepal’s voters deserve better than rules that work only on paper.