 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
| |
|
|
|
Bihari Krishna Shrestha/Democracy and traditional
social order in rural Nepal: The inclusionary
ferment of change at the grassroots
This
presentation focused on democracy and the traditional
social order in rural Nepal. Social exclusion
in Nepal is the result of many factors: resource
deprivation, Hindu orthodoxy, political deprivation,
development deprivation, and geographical isolation,
among others. Poverty, in turn, is typically linked
to a matrix of attributes including low caste/ethnic
status, limited/non-existent resource endowment,
lack of land, illiteracy, educational disadvantage,
and lack of access to institutions. In general,
it can be characterised as the existence of the
poor as satellites to elites.
The
conflict-ridden social-political structure is
likewise defined by these characteristics, in
particular by the domination of Bahun, Chhetri
and Newar groups. More generally, party affiliation,
which forms the basis of the political structure,
is based on traditional rivalries among the elite.
Nepal’s
politics suffers from a multiparty paradox, a
structurally defined distortion of democracy.
Even with changes in the party in power, there
has been a sustained failure to deliver results
to the people, leading to the present Maoist conflagration.
Some of the attributes of this paradox are unethical
behaviour on the part of politicians, voting detached
from ideology, use of clan networks, and the buying
of votes. As a general rule, successful politicians
are corrupt.
One
approach to overcoming the malaise of politics
is the devolution of power to local units. Community
forest programmes, which emerged after the desertification
alarm of the 1980s, are now common in parts of
Nepal. The Decentralisation Act of 1982 created
User Groups (UGs) of local people to manage resources,
and by 1988, with support from the World Bank,
UGs had spread to many parts of the country.
Forest
User Groups (FUGs) are based on principles of
participatory decision-making, transparency of
management and accountability of leaders. Nepal
currently has 12,500 FUGs involving 1.3 million
households managing 933,000 hectares of forest.
Thanks to the programme, there are now more trees
being planted than cut down. FUGs operate through
the equitable distribution of forestry products,
and oftentimes low caste groups get greater shares.
In the Tarai, FUGs can include as many as 600
households, which is too large, although even
these groups are better than previous arrangements.
Another
decentralisation effort is the Small Farmer Cooperative
Limited (SFCL), which was founded in 1975. SFCLs
facilitate grassroots saving projects and credit
groups of 5 to 9 members, usually women. The project
has suffered from politicisation, overstaffing,
high overhead costs and low recovery rates, though
it has contributed to ecological maintenance and
rural upliftment.
In the village of Naktajheej, about half of the
1100 households representing 25 caste groups (including
seven Dalit groups) participate in SFCLs. The
remaining households either do not participate
because they lack citizenship certificates or
because they have access to other finance institutions.
The SFCLs are good governance institutions because
their operation reflects VDC priorities.
There
are some obstacles to the acceleration of inclusion-based
approaches at local levels. Much talk of decentralisation
on the part of officials and ‘distinctive’
donor agencies is mere rhetoric, and the government
is often unresponsive. Donors could be more helpful,
and researchers could take greater interest in
these programmes.
This investigation into democracy and local-level
programmes leads to a number of related conclusions.
First, exclusion is historically derived and remains
largely unchallenged. Second, democracy must be
custom tailored to the needs and limitations of
communities. Third, Nepal has not yet completely
engaged with democracy. Four, the extensive devolution
of authority to local groups should be a future
priority. Finally, civil society must play a strong
role in monitoring this process and helping it
advance.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
