Struggle for Inclusion
Kathmandu Post
May 26th, 2011
by Rukmini Chaudhary, Som Maya Tamang and Shakun Sherchand Leslie
Once again, three women -- a Tharu, a Tamang and a Thakali -- congregated at Maitighar on April 26, 2011, to oppose the passage of the Samabesi Bidhayek. This Social Inclusion Bill has resurfaced without significant changes promised after the five-point agreement signed by the then UCPN (Maoist)-led government with the Adivasi Tharuhat Sangarsha Samiti in April 2009 when the Bill was issued as adyadesh (ordinance).
The April 27 banda was a civil disobedience act called by the Newars and the Tamangs, with solidarity from the Adivasi Janajatis, Dalits and Muslims, to protest this discriminatory Social bill. This issue of continued state discrimination has been raised by four political parties --the Sanghiya Loktantrik Manch, Dalit Janajati Party, Newa Party and Independent (Muslim) Party -- by obstructing the proceedings of the CA Constitutional Committee.
The original ordinance had 'imposed' the inclusion of 92 indigenous identities under the broad 'Madhesi' category, thereby manipulating the social inclusion statistics. What it effectively did was allow the hill high caste men, who have had all the historical benefits, to capture the 55 percent under the so-called "free competition" category. In fact, many hill high caste men have surnames which use "la" at the end (e.g., Dahala, Nepala, Khanala). They have sought to secure control of their traditionally dominant groups over the state bureaucracy and resources.
The Social Inclusion Bill perpetuates discrimination by setting aside only 45 percent of these reservations for the Adivasi Janajatis, Dalits, Madhesi, Muslims and women without any logic. The much-touted 33 percent women quota is in reality only required within the 45 percent allocated for the discriminated groups - not within the remaining 55 percent. This would bring the women's total share in government jobs to less than 10 percent-not the promised 33 percent. Furthermore, women would be categorized without caste or ethnic distinctions, thereby undermining the possibility of a truly diverse state structure. Therefore, the new Social Inclusion Bill must take into account the diversity of Nepali women in order to achieve the real changes promised by Jana Andolan II.
After the 2008 elections, only the Madhesi community benefitted from Dahal's 2009 ordinance. They secured a sizeable chunk of state positions at the expense of the quota reserved for other groups who were demanding full proportional representation.
Similarly, these historically marginalized groups were apprehensive about the major parties' proposal to distribute national scholarship schemes. The Adivasi Janajati had been slotted 32 seats, while the Tharus were placed within the Madhesi reservation of 28 seats. Despite the national claim for more educational opportunities for women, their reservation decreased from 33 seats to 20 seats. The Dalit claim for equal educational opportunities was actually curtailed from 15 seats to nine seats.
This resistance to achieving real inclusion as committed by the Interim
Constitution's Social Inclusion Bill can be defined as the traditionally dominant groups' desire to maintain their dominance through the Big Three leadership.
The Bill, if unobstructed, will continue the trend of the one-caste hegemony at all levels of statehood, irrespective of when the constitution is drafted. This would bring the new democratic process to a halt, questioning the preamble of the Interim Constitution which promised a truly democratic, secular, inclusive, federal state.
Without a workable and sincere blueprint for social inclusion that addresses the continuing historical discrimination, the new Nepali state would be encouraging and validating 'caste apartheid' on a new legal level. The democratic constitution for the racially disfranchised black South Africans only came into existence after the state accepted its guilt for its historical racial discrimination and was willing to end it through serious affirmative action.
The Nepali state is rife with nepotism and corruption, fed by continuing caste selection tendencies. Recently, the Kathmandu Municipality selected seven Brahmin men, three Brahmin women (under the women's quota), four Chetri men and only one Newar for the 15 vacant posts. Where is the inclusion? This continuing mono-cultural trend is detrimental to the well-being of the state. Without accommodating the aspirations of the historically discriminated and diverse groups, the trend of protests (and bandas) will not end anytime soon. Repressing diversity leads to exclusion and, in worse cases, instigates violence, as has been apparent in
the Terai and around the world.
As diverse groups feel squeezed out from most functioning organs of governance, they are questioning the Social Inclusion Bill much more seriously. As every Nepali is defined by caste, the new constitution is expected to solve these lingering, historical problems by collaborative dialogue and negotiation to achieve a new national social contract with full proportionate representation at all levels of the state.
The international community's effort in bringing viable balance to disproportionate representation in their own organizations strengthens the previously discriminated identities. To exercise political rights to challenge the unitary and exclusionary caste system without external intervention is in consonance with Nepali democracy.
At the most, donors can act as a powerful medium of change. Instead of applying conditional economic sanctions on Nepal's development, it may be more effective for the donor community to revaluate its role at this historic moment so as to benefit the most deprived of Nepal's 28 million people.
Freedom in the West was achieved through various civil rights movements and civil disobediences. While Nepal struggles to chart out its future, the Adivasi Janajatis and other discriminated groups will continue to fight for the soul of their country.
Chaudhary is a CA member
Tamang is hairman of the Sanghiya Loktantrik Manch
Leslie is president of the Nepal Federation of Himalayan Indigenous Buddhists
Showing posts with label Nepali politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nepali politics. Show all posts
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Monday, May 16, 2011
Nepali Politics, May 2011 -- It's Complicated...
Nepal is currently enduring a lengthy post-conflict peace process that is girded by the issues of the Maoist cantonments and the drafting of a new constitution.
These two distinct processes are at the heart of the lengthy peace process that began in 2006 with the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA) followed by the promulgation of the Interim Constitution in 2007 and the Constituent Assembly elections in 2008.
The Constituent Assembly (CA) was supposed to complete the process of drafting and promulgating a new Nepali constitution by May 28th, 2010, but missed that deadline and is soon to miss the one year extension date of May 28th, 2011. Yet, the final agreements on the new constitution remain closely aligned to the final decisions on integration, rehabilitation and reintegration of the Maoist army which has also been delayed.
Until there is greater progress on the cantonments, the final constitutional issues will remain unresolved.
Along with the issue of the final detachment of the People’s Liberation Army from the United Communist Party of Nepal Maoist (UCPN/M) and the drafting of the new constitution, the major political parties continue to struggle over the issue of power-sharing in the government. The present government is led by Jhalanath Khanal of the Communist Party Nepal-United Marxist-Leninist (UML) supported by the UCPN/M and the Madheshi Janadhikar Forum (MJF), one of the important Madhesi party factions. However, there are deep rifts w/in each of the major parties while the three largest Madhesi parties have all split over the last year into separate factions.
It is likely as a price of extending the CA past the current May 28th deadline (as set and revised in the Interim Constitution 2007), the Congress Party, the second largest in the CA after the UCPN/M and before the UML, will insist upon a consensus government, including them, under a new prime minister. This political negotiation and calculation has taken up much of the various party leaders’ time over the past few months, leaving less time for resolving the remaining issues to draft a constitution by May 28th.
The situation will remain rather tenuous and uncertain until final negotiations and agreements are made right before the deadline of midnight on May 28th.
In addition to the various political struggles within and between these three major political parties, there are deep and unresolved issues among the major ethnic, linguistic and geographic communities in Nepal.
As all three of the major parties are lead and controlled by Brahmin-Chhetri men (15% of Nepal), there has been a growing movement of indigenous people (‘adivasi-janjati’), Madhesi (people from the terai or lowlands along the Indian border) and Dalits (the formerly untouchable castes) to ensure that the new constitution ensures the progressive restructuring of the state, including new provinces based on ethnic and linguistic boundaries, as well as much expanded reservations or proportionate representation for the historically marginalized.
Each of these communities are represented in the major parties, but they are rarely on the Central Committee or Politburos where real power lies. For that reason, the Madhesis, after a major political movement in early 2007 when they protested the lack of federalism in the Interim Constitution, formed new political parties to represent their interests. Neither the indigenous peoples (IP) nor the Dalits have successfully initiated such parties to-date, although they have a few very minor parties in the CA who vociferously advocate for their rights, in addition to the work done by the IP, Madhesi, Women’s and Dalit CA Caucuses.
Among these various political actors and parties, the UCPN/M, naturally, is considered either the most radical or progressive, depending on your political perspective. The UML is often seen as a more opportunist party willing to swing either right or left to align with the other two major parties for their own party or personal interests. The Congress, once the progressive, anti-feudal party of the 1960-80s, is now seen as more conservative in the political spectrum, the status quo ante party.
The three major Madhesi parties (MJF, Terai Loktantric and Sadbhavana) have all split into two separate factions each, contesting for influence and power among the major three parties. There are altogether 27 (or 28…) parties in the CA, including many with less than five representatives.
Along with state restructuring, proportional representation, some of the other major issues facing the country while drafting the new constitution include: the form of government (directly elected president, prime minister in a parliamentary system or a mixed system) and the type of electoral systems (first past the post, proportional or mixed system) and an independent judiciary.
As there have not been local elections since 1997, and the previous local governments were dissolved by a Congress government in 2002, all local government is being managed by government officials. This, too, is a serious, lingering issue as without locally elected leadership the structure of good governance and democratic government is deeply flawed. Yet the current political parties mostly say that there can only be local elections after the issues identified above are resolved and there are national, then provincial elections some three to five years in the future.
As they say, it's complicated...
These two distinct processes are at the heart of the lengthy peace process that began in 2006 with the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA) followed by the promulgation of the Interim Constitution in 2007 and the Constituent Assembly elections in 2008.
The Constituent Assembly (CA) was supposed to complete the process of drafting and promulgating a new Nepali constitution by May 28th, 2010, but missed that deadline and is soon to miss the one year extension date of May 28th, 2011. Yet, the final agreements on the new constitution remain closely aligned to the final decisions on integration, rehabilitation and reintegration of the Maoist army which has also been delayed.
Until there is greater progress on the cantonments, the final constitutional issues will remain unresolved.
Along with the issue of the final detachment of the People’s Liberation Army from the United Communist Party of Nepal Maoist (UCPN/M) and the drafting of the new constitution, the major political parties continue to struggle over the issue of power-sharing in the government. The present government is led by Jhalanath Khanal of the Communist Party Nepal-United Marxist-Leninist (UML) supported by the UCPN/M and the Madheshi Janadhikar Forum (MJF), one of the important Madhesi party factions. However, there are deep rifts w/in each of the major parties while the three largest Madhesi parties have all split over the last year into separate factions.
It is likely as a price of extending the CA past the current May 28th deadline (as set and revised in the Interim Constitution 2007), the Congress Party, the second largest in the CA after the UCPN/M and before the UML, will insist upon a consensus government, including them, under a new prime minister. This political negotiation and calculation has taken up much of the various party leaders’ time over the past few months, leaving less time for resolving the remaining issues to draft a constitution by May 28th.
The situation will remain rather tenuous and uncertain until final negotiations and agreements are made right before the deadline of midnight on May 28th.
In addition to the various political struggles within and between these three major political parties, there are deep and unresolved issues among the major ethnic, linguistic and geographic communities in Nepal.
As all three of the major parties are lead and controlled by Brahmin-Chhetri men (15% of Nepal), there has been a growing movement of indigenous people (‘adivasi-janjati’), Madhesi (people from the terai or lowlands along the Indian border) and Dalits (the formerly untouchable castes) to ensure that the new constitution ensures the progressive restructuring of the state, including new provinces based on ethnic and linguistic boundaries, as well as much expanded reservations or proportionate representation for the historically marginalized.
Each of these communities are represented in the major parties, but they are rarely on the Central Committee or Politburos where real power lies. For that reason, the Madhesis, after a major political movement in early 2007 when they protested the lack of federalism in the Interim Constitution, formed new political parties to represent their interests. Neither the indigenous peoples (IP) nor the Dalits have successfully initiated such parties to-date, although they have a few very minor parties in the CA who vociferously advocate for their rights, in addition to the work done by the IP, Madhesi, Women’s and Dalit CA Caucuses.
Among these various political actors and parties, the UCPN/M, naturally, is considered either the most radical or progressive, depending on your political perspective. The UML is often seen as a more opportunist party willing to swing either right or left to align with the other two major parties for their own party or personal interests. The Congress, once the progressive, anti-feudal party of the 1960-80s, is now seen as more conservative in the political spectrum, the status quo ante party.
The three major Madhesi parties (MJF, Terai Loktantric and Sadbhavana) have all split into two separate factions each, contesting for influence and power among the major three parties. There are altogether 27 (or 28…) parties in the CA, including many with less than five representatives.
Along with state restructuring, proportional representation, some of the other major issues facing the country while drafting the new constitution include: the form of government (directly elected president, prime minister in a parliamentary system or a mixed system) and the type of electoral systems (first past the post, proportional or mixed system) and an independent judiciary.
As there have not been local elections since 1997, and the previous local governments were dissolved by a Congress government in 2002, all local government is being managed by government officials. This, too, is a serious, lingering issue as without locally elected leadership the structure of good governance and democratic government is deeply flawed. Yet the current political parties mostly say that there can only be local elections after the issues identified above are resolved and there are national, then provincial elections some three to five years in the future.
As they say, it's complicated...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)