 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
| |
| |
|
Mahendra
Lawoti/Inclusive democratic institutions in Nepal
This
presentation on exclusionary democracy in Nepal
is mostly prescriptive, although more detailed
analysis can be found in the distributed paper.
Generally speaking, this country has a serious
exclusion problem in all of its institutions,
including parliament and the bureaucracy. Nor
is this problem confined to a bygone age; in certain
respects, rather than alleviate the problem, post-1990
democracy has actually worsened it. The likely
outcomes of this situation are various and troubling:
ethnic violence, the endangering of democracy,
perhaps even a threat to the unity of Nepal.
Solutions
to the exclusionary democracy problem must take
a broad view of the problem and not address themselves
to solitary institutions. Among others, solutions
include increasing federalism and reservations,
accelerating constitutional reforms and, more
generally, securing the protection of rights.
There are also problems rooted in the electoral
structure, in particular the first-past-the-post
system, which does not represent the interests
of the marginalised electorate. Inclusive democracy
implies broad-based participation in decision-making
processes and in the formulation of public policies.
The
scale of exclusion in Nepali society is truly
expansive; the elite dominates even progressive
realms like the media and human rights groups.
Cultural discrimination plays itself out in discrimination
based on language and religion, and more broadly
in the limiting of access to resources. Exclusion
in Nepal goes beyond culture, however, and includes
discrimination based on ethnic/caste status, language,
class, gender, region and religion.
Nepal’s
current institutions are fundamentally shaped
by their exclusionary orientation. Majoritarian
institutions, such as those adopted by Nepal,
work in majority societies, not in multicultural
ones. Consensus institutions would be more appropriate
here. Majoritarian institutions worsen class cleavages,
and in Nepal they are imbued with caste-Hindu
values, which has the effect of limiting individual
rights. Because the constitution is geared towards
certain groups, individuals from those groups
enjoy protection under the law not afforded to
all citizens. There are any number of objections
one could raise against the present political
structure, from its racist and sexist assumptions
to its unfair dismissal of multilingualism and
restrictions on rights of association.
An
overview of the present constitution’s supporters
and detractors exposes the interests at play.
Advocates are primarily male Bahuns, while opposition
is found in most other parts of society, but most
strongly among the most disadvantaged. It is important
here to draw a distinction between criticising
the highly imperfect institutions of a democracy
and maligning democracy itself.
A
political structure based on the principle of
inclusion would possess many benefits. It would
help to promote equality and justice, consolidate
and deepen democracy, and mitigate violent ethnic
conflicts. Moreover, it would address the concerns
of Maoists, adivasis-janjatis, madhesis, and Muslims,
all of whom are angry with the present set-up.
The
ideal structure to replace the existing one would
draw on many influences, but essentially be consensus-building
in outlook rather than majoritarian. The philosophical
foundations for such a model come from the work
of John Rawls, who advocated a system blind to
an individual’s racial, gender, ethnic/caste,
religious and class when making decisions. Another
aspect should be promoting justice for the weak.
One
practical model of achieving these aims is federalism.
Such a system could provide the right balance
of state action and decentralisation, allowing
inclusion through cultural autonomy, empowering
marginalised groups, and moulding public policy
to better reflect the interests of the entire
public. There are also opportunities for better
management of ethnic conflict, for more efficient
and responsive administration, for regionally-balanced
economic development, and for more decentralisation
and local-level experimentation.
Federalism
in Nepal would need to be based on a strong commitment
to regional and local autonomy. There would have
to be allowances made for the formation of new
regions and sub-regions as necessary, and given
the ethnic and linguistic patchwork of the country,
there would have to be a degree of non-territorial
autonomy. At the national level, rather than a
conventional parliament, the country could have
a house of nationalities based on equitable representation
of all groups in the country.
Some
people doubt the ability of federalism to transform
Nepal. One common argument is that Nepal is too
small for federalism to work effectively. However,
Nepal is much larger than many states which have
successful federal systems. Another argument is
that federalism will only lead to the creation
of ‘new minorities’ springing up to
exploit the system, but there are reasonable safeguards
that can be implemented to prevent this. Finally,
particularly in light of the country’s political
problems, there is a fear of secession, although
really this argument is counter-intuitive as it
is the lack of autonomy, rather than its presence,
that pushes people toward secession and violence.
The
proposal advanced here argues for the formation
of 13 regions in the country representing different
groups. At the national level, this would combine
in a system of proportional representation and
power sharing. Reservations would be provided
in education, public employment and politics as
necessary. People objecting to reservations should
acknowledge that since 1854 a small group has
dominated the entire country through what is essentially
a system of narrow reservation for them. Moreover,
with some limited reservations already in place
for women, reservations already have precedence
in principle.
Another
important challenge is reforming the examination
system, which in its present form is conducted
only in Nepali. If other groups had meaningful
access to this system, they would improve their
standing over time. As for promoting social stability,
consider south India, where reservations have
been aggressively promoted for years.
Some
critics of reservations are motivated by genuine
concern about changing the system. But criticising
and reforming a system are not the same things
as rejecting one, and the present system is in
bad need of renovation. Countries lacking natural
resources need human resources for their development,
and the political structure must facilitate such
progress.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
