Submit your Article

If there is one overarching message of our five-part APEX Series ‘Women in politics’, it is that good legislation alone does not ensure gender balance in key state organs and political decision-making bodies. Perhaps it’s a matter of time. The sea-change brought about by the 2006 movement for democracy was rather abrupt. For one, it was difficult for Nepalis to get used to a country without the monarchy, which had been around for nearly 250 years. Nor did our politicians and legislators know what to do with their newfound powers after the transfer of complete sovereignty to the people.

Post-2006, women’s representation in state organs shot up dramatically. First the interim constitution (2007) and then the new constitution (2015) guaranteed at least 33 percent representation of women in state legislatures and in political parties’ key decision-making bodies. Nepal’s legislature suddenly became among the most inclusive in the world. Perhaps women’s lead role in the Maoist rebellion had a big hand in changing the perception that women should be confined to their homes. Yet after the Maoists were brought into the political mainstream, the male political leaders who controlled the national polity were still reluctant to see women in leadership roles.

As a result, whether in political parties’ decision-making bodies, or in state institutions, or in local elected bodies, women got secondary roles as deputies to men. Or they were excluded outright: all four of our national parties are illegitimate as they don’t have the mandatory 33 percent women’s participation in party organs. Time may change this imbalance. But given the entrenched patriarchy, it may not.  

What will work better is sustained pressure on our politicians and legislators to continue to make the country more inclusive and fairer. Women’s participation has been shown to contribute to better institutional decision-making, and even to peace and social harmony. If we are to thrive as a country, and to attain the double-digit growth the prime minister likes to dream about, women’s greater participation is mandatory. The most prosperous countries like Norway and Switzerland are also the most gender-inclusive, while poor and unstable ones like Afghanistan and South Sudan are among the most hostile to women. That gender equality brings peace and prosperity is no wild theory. It is now solid science.

The then CPN (Maoist) had launched the ‘people’s war’ on Feb 13, 1996, which formally ended with the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement on Nov 21, 2006. National politics has come a long way since. The monarchy was abolished, and a federal republic established. The former Maoist leaders see the uprooting of the feudal monarchy as the biggest achievement of the war, coupled with laying the foundation for a more fair and inclusive ‘New Nepal’. Thanks in large part to the war, they believe sovereignty is now completely vested on the people and power devolved to the lowest rungs of government.

But as former Maoist leaders observed the 23^rd ‘people’s war day’ on Feb 13 this year, that narrative is being increasingly contested. Critics see the 10 years of conflict as a ‘lost decade’ when Nepal’s development process not only halted but was pushed back by years. Was the loss of 17,000 lives and forced disappearance of nearly 2,000 people worth it? And aren’t the Maoists being disingenuous when they credit their war for recent changes when in reality it was the ‘peaceful movement’ of 2006 that did the trick?

Interestingly, former Maoists under Pushpa Kamal Dahal have now merged with their once bitter enemies, KP Oli-led CPN-UML, to form the Nepal Communist Party (NCP). Dahal’s UML colleagues refuse to celebrate the anniversary of the ‘people’s war’. PM Oli was notably absent from the ceremony this year, as were most of the erstwhile senior UML leaders. Whether to recognize the war was among the biggest sticking points as the merger was being discussed, and most UML leaders continue to believe it was a big mistake.

But leaders of the traditionally marginalized communities like Madhesis, Dalits and Janajatis have a different take. They give more credit to the Maoist war for at least trying to demolish the erstwhile near-complete monopoly of select caste groups in the state machinery. Likewise, with women commanders at the forefront of the war, Nepali women’s traditionally subservient image got a complete makeover.

Whether one subscribes to the first or the second narrative, one thing is certain: even if fought with the best of intent, war has all kinds of unforeseeable consequences. Conflict victims continue to wait for justice, 12 long years after the start of the peace process. Nor has the legitimization of the use of violence by non-state actors been healthy for Nepal’s nascent democracy. Yes, there should be a nuanced understanding of the Maoist war. But as Benjamin Franklin put it: there never was a good war or a bad peace.

Ever since the powerful communist govern­ment of KP Sharma Oli took office nearly a year ago, there have been fears that the gov­ernment could abuse its powers to curtail free speech and stifle press freedom. The communist coalition, which later morphed into the Nepal Commu­nist Party, had come to power on the twin promises of ‘stability’ and ‘prosperity’. While the NCP seems to have ensured the former with its thumping two-thirds majority in the federal parliament, as well as effective control of six of the seven provincial assemblies, it is a long way from achieving the latter.

The Oli government’s performance thus far has been disappointing. The economy is in a shambles. Even as Nepal’s exports dwindle, imports continue to pile up, leading to a whopping Rs 82.32 billion balance of pay­ment deficit in the first five months of the ongoing fis­cal. None of the big-ticket infrastructure projects has come through. Melamchi has been left high and dry. Progress on two international airports at Bhairahawa and Pokhara is patchy, while controversy rages over the proposed international air-hub in Nijgadh. Mean­while, corruption is increasing and impunity is at an all-time high.

But instead of getting its act together, the Oli govern­ment seems intent on silencing its critics. The latest manifestation of this is a new bill on advertisement regulation recently tabled in the federal upper house. If it passes, for the first time in Nepal’s democratic his­tory, any deviation from the official advertisement pol­icy will be a criminal offense, punished with up to Rs 500,000 in fines and up to five years in jail, or both. A producer of advertisements that promote gambling or Ponzi schemes will get the maximum sentence. So will the makers of ads deemed a threat to national sovereignty, territorial integrity, nationalism, relations between provinces and to a whole host of other real or imagined national interests. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Information has introduced measures to restrict jour­nalists’ access to inside dope in government agencies.

The government’s intent seems clear enough. While the cheerers of the Oli government in the media will get lucrative ads and every other kind of government support, critical outlets will be endlessly hounded and be deprived of their chief income source. This attempt to kill the messenger smacks of an authoritarian streak. The press fraternity and the civil society should speak as one against this mission creep—before it is too late.

That corruption is increasing in Nepal hardly needs confirmation. As we go to press, Dr Govinda KC is on his 16th fast-unto-death, as a part of his campaign against the corrupt bureaucrats and politicians who have deprived mil­lions of Nepalis of affordable and reliable healthcare. Just this past week, the Center for Investigative Journal­ism, Nepal published the names of 55 Nepali nationals who have amassed ill-gotten wealth in tax havens, and described how this money is being laundered back into the country. The national flag-carrier is under par­liamentary investigation for iffy transactions related to its purchase of two Airbus aircraft.

And now, the Transparency International, the global anti-graft watchdog, has released the 2019 Corruption Perception Index (CPI). Nepal has slipped two places from last year, to 124th, well below neighboring India (78th), and even troubled Pakistan (117th). The CPI says Nepal’s political parties and bureaucracy are the most corrupt entities in the country. In other words, the communist government with a two-thirds majority at the center is contributing to the institutionalization of corruption in high places. Rather than using its vast powers to clamp down on corruption, it is rewarding unscrupulous contractors and fixers.

One often gets to hear about how the whole govern­ment machinery operates under the ‘system’. While earlier individual government officials asked for small kickbacks for ‘pushing the file forward’, nowadays one or two officials pocket lump sums which are later dis­tributed down the line. Corruption now is thus less visi­ble but more prevalent. Even foreigners are not spared, as our story this week on the ordeal of the first foreign couple to register their marriage in Nepal illustrates.

For Nepal to make a significant dent on this bur­geoning edifice of corruption, it is vital that its chief anti-corruption bodies like the CIAA and the National Vigilance Center (NVC) get, first, the right manpower, and second, the autonomy to carry out their respon­sibilities freely and fearlessly. Yet the intent of the Oli government seems to be on cowing these institutions to do the government’s bidding, as putting the NVC under the Prime Minister’s Office suggests. The cul­ture of ‘political consensus’ that flourished following the 2006 political change has also been detrimental to the health of our public bodies. Even as the ruling and opposition parties appear bitterly divided over some issues, they are united in the shared knowledge that each has closets full of skeletons.