 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
| |
| |
|
Lynn
Bennett/Towards an inclusive society: The role
of state policy and institutional reform in enabling
more effective and equitable agency among diverse
groups in Nepal
Lynn
Bennett spoke about diversity, inclusion, and
contesting hierarchy in Nepali democracy, which
today is the site of gender, caste and ethnic
exclusion at the national level. Addressing the
question of social change, she said that empowerment
and inclusion are both important. Empowerment
comes from change at the grassroots level, and
inclusion must be facilitated at the policy and
institutional levels. If one is unaccompanied
by the other, situations arise like that of the
kamaiyas, who are empowered but not included.
In Bennett’s framework, there were three
elements: a) people/actors organised in power
relationships; b) assets and capabilities; and
c) rules of the game or institutions, which are
many and often in conflict with each other.
First,
describing the typical relationships in an unequal
society, Bennett suggested the mechanism through
which change can be effected. In any existing
structure, institutions (which are controlled
by the elites) control assets and capabilities.
Providing livelihood empowerment, i.e. access
to assets and capabilities for the poor enables
the formation of a middle class. This must be
accompanied by mobilisation empowerment, or enabling
people to engage, influence and hold accountable
the institutions that affect their lives. There
must also be social inclusion at the policy level,
as it cannot come from people at the grassroots.
Bennett
outlined the history of inclusion (or exclusion)
in Nepal. Broadly speaking, Nepal has had three
historical periods. During the Shah-Rana era,
the caste system was used to unify the diverse
groups of Nepal, and a patriarchal ideology and
gender exclusion were dispatched for the control
of women. During the 30-year Panchayat era (1960-1990),
the caste system was abolished but the legal code
was not consistent with the legislation, and citizens’
rights were very limited. Inclusion meant the
assimilation into the Hindu parbatiya mould—which
janjatis, dalits and women were expected to adhere
to. The latest era is of multiparty democracy,
into which the period of the Maoist insurgency
may be subsumed. It is important to ask how far
Nepal has progressed in terms of inclusion during
democracy, and to assess how 40 years of development
aid have affected Nepal’s social structures.
It is important to keep in mind that during this
period, the situation developed such that the
janjatis, dalits and women were ready recruits
for the Maoists when the insurgency arrived. This
is because ethnic, gender and caste disparities
persisted in spite of aid and democracy.
Bennet
suggested that the way forward was deep inclusion,
which can only be brought about by changes from
within the power structure. This entails the granting
and guaranteeing of citizens’ rights, institutional
accountability, and changes in values and the
code of behaviour. Even within the present social
hierarchy, there is space for diversity to manifest
itself, but it is not being utilised.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
