The present session of the House is near to completion. It would be proper time to look into the performance and delivery of the House that matters. A considerable time of the House was consumed by the squabbling of the ruling party making it hostage for about a month without a meeting. Numbers of legislative bills expected to be passed from this session could not move forward. Whatever the issues came in were least discussed and passed. 

It is a common practice in the House that questions are being raised by the frontbenchers most of the time. They also participate in other policy debates criticizing the government. The other members of the party are contained with minor role raising questions of lesser importance. Most of the time, members are seen active in zero hour with questions related with their constituencies. A glimpse of discussion during budget session is an indication that reflects how the interests of the members are reflected in raising questions about budget allocation for the public work. A small number of members of the opposition bench take interest in analyzing policy direction and implication of the budget in the national development.    

Whenever the major issues of the government comes into the table in the form of legislative bills, the front benchers are seen active in support of the bill by the members of the ruling party and opposing by the opposition parties. It is a common tendency of the House that members are blindly divided in party lines either in support or in criticism without validating or examining the substance of the contain of the bills. 

In order to effectively counter the policy of the government requires an in-depth knowledge and thorough study of the prevailing situation of the country and analytical review of the proposed policy of the government. Considering the relevancy of such a nature, the members of the House are provided with salaried staff to support them with required information, facts, figures and data. The legislative bills with varying nature are generated from the different functional departments of the government with the help of technical expertise for which professional expertise is required to review them seriously. In the absence of meticulous review, the chances of being overlooked is common and passed easily from the house, where the chances of policy manipulations may not be denied. The role of the opposition is critical in such a stage. 

In order to handle the critical and intricate business of the governance, dealing with the major policy issues in the House, demand experienced, qualified and matured politicians, which itself is a complicated issue. It may not be necessary that the members of the House are highly qualified, since most them are representing from the political background. Voters use their liberty and use their rights to elect their representatives as they think appropriate, and it may not necessarily be that they vote for educated and qualified candidate. Since election is also a choice from alternatives, it is a voter’s paradox to find right candidate within the given alternatives. It is therefore the political party should be considerate enough while nominating their candidate and distributing tickets for electoral contest so that a considerable size of the representatives are qualified and merit based. 

How effective are policy debates in the House of Representative and National Assembly? 

In National Assembly, most of the time, two or three members, who are from the law background, are vocal and seen raising questions during debates. It is not different than National Assembly in the House of Representatives, where a limited members are visible participating in policy debates. The House becomes lively and meaningful, when the representatives involve actively with complementary reasons, thoughts and ideas concerned with the peoples’ livelihood, constitutional rights, and freedoms. 

Since voters cannot individually represent in the parliament, they send their representatives through election. It is presumed that their representatives are interconnected and communication maintained with them throughout their tenure. Voters also believe that their representatives put peoples’ concerns eloquently in the parliament that should have been reflected in policy formulations of the government. However, in reality, people are seen frustrated due to incompetency of the lawmakers to safeguard their rights. As every policies of the government are easily getting its way and being endorsed by the parliament without facing any challenges from the opposition, the opposition’s lackluster in reexamining and scrutinizing government’s policies is evident. 

In the present context, the role of the opposition in the federal parliament of Nepal is being at stake and ineffective contrary to the people’s expectation. The ineffective and unimpressive performance of the opposition in the federal parliament may have multiple dimension of its own. The political scientists and analyst have now started showing their discontent on electoral system and present their views that the existing proportionate system for the House of Representative encourages candidates to find alternative means using their financial capabilities to be elected. However, a single but prominent cause is attributed to the qualification of the members of the House of Representatives and National Assembly. The following figures explains a volumes about it. The House is full of generalists and semiliterate members. If the political parties have given due prudence, the house would have been filled with a considerable size of professional and qualified members.  

Out of two hundred seventy-five members in the present House of Representatives, there are three medical doctors and one engineer as professional, whereas 176 members hold academic degrees ten out of them are Phd, sixty-five Masters and one hundred one Bachelors. With the Bachelor degree least are from the law stream. Interestingly, twelve members are simply literate, 27 have passed school level examination and forty-two had have attended school. Eighteen members, who did not disclosed their level of education should be presumed as literate. With regard to the classification under academic background, a considerable size with 99 members of the House of Representatives come under the literate category. 

The situation in the National Assembly is also not different, which presents the national picture of the representation at the policy making body.  Out of 59 members, there are 2 Phd, 14 Master and 13 Bachelor degree holders. From professional background, there are 4 lawyers and 2 economists present in the Assembly. Out of 59 members about half of them are underqualified, with education level intermediate 9, school 12 and literate 7. Two candidate did not disclosed their qualification, which shall be presumed as literate. Out of 59 members, who represent in the National Assembly are presumed to be simply an educated without any basic academic degree. 

It is not necessarily that the House of Representatives and National Assembly be represented by highly qualified professional members, but the scenario that presents present House lacks the minimum level of qualified members with academic excellence. The reasons for the House not being lively and impressive in delivering policy debates are due to the absence of professionals and qualified members’ representation.