Political revolution done,time for prosperity
Nepal completed its democratic revolution quite late, at the fag end of the 20th century or the early 21st century. Such democratic revolution was completed in Europe in the 19th century and in most other countries in the early 20th century. Because of this delay, we lagged behind the rest of the world by almost 250 years. Fortunately, we managed to more or less complete the revolution at the start of the 21st century. After the promulgation of the democratic republican constitution through the Constituent Assembly (CA), a new era has dawned in Nepal—an era of peace and prosperity.
Political parties are the articulators of people’s socio-economic needs and their aspirations. When the political agenda changes, the parties should either change their agenda and strategy as well, or reform themselves. Or they will lose their legitimacy. With this in mind, we founded the Naya Shakti Party. In my understanding, the Nepali Congress and the Nepal Communist Party were born out of the democratic revolutionary needs of the mid-20th century. To that extent, they played a positive role in the country’s democratic process.
But now the agenda has shifted to socio-economic transformation. The question is whether the parties which played a lead role in the historical phase of political revolution can also play the same role in the course of the country’s socio-economic transformation. History has mixed examples. In some European countries where the democratic revolution has been completed or has deepened roots, the parties leading the post-revolutionary phase played a positive role in their country’s socio-economic transformation.
But in most third-world countries, the parties that led the political or democratic revolution have failed to deliver economic development. In Nepal’s case, the reason is that our political revolution dragged on for seven decades. It started in the 1950s but it compromised with the old establishment. Again, when there was political regression under the monarchy for 30 years, democratic processes, values and institutions were destroyed.
This is the time for our political leadership to wake up and deliver. I hope they do.
When multi-party democracy was restored in 1990, the parties again compromised with the monarchy in the making of the 1990 constitution. Then the Maoist revolution did away with the monarchy and ushered in a republic and a constituent assembly. But even the Maoist movement did not end in complete victory as it had to compromise with the old political parties (minus the monarchy now). So that way, Nepal’s democratic process was never deep-rooted. When revolutionary forces compromise with old establishment forces, they tend to be co-opted. This resulted in a hodgepodge of a transition system, which was a major hurdle for rapid economic development.
This is one reason why Nepal’s political parties have not been able to produce rapid socio-economic transformation. Another reason is geopolitical: our over-dependence on India and its non-cooperation on our development. Mismanagement of institutions, bad governance and rampant corruption are other reasons. Because of these factors, the political forces that took the lead in political revolution have not been able to deliver on the socio-economic front.
This has given rise to frustration among the youth, millions of whom have little choice but to go abroad for employment, and the country virtually runs on the remittance they send. Resentment is again rising in the society. So the political parties should remake themselves—transform themselves by learning from past and international experiences, and lead the country to peace and prosperity. Or new political forces will come forward and fill the vacuum. We are now at the crossroads. Legally and formally, we have a two-third majority government and the country’s two biggest communist parties are united. The unity appears strong and people have high expectations of them. But one year has passed, and they have not delivered. At the very least, they could have controlled corruption and strengthened law and order, even if they could not make radical economic progress.
As a result, resentment is growing. I hope the ruling parties will introspect on their activities of the past one year and mend ways. If that does not happen, I see a serious problem ahead, which will be exacerbated by the fast-changing geopolitical situation in the neighborhood. Both China and India are developing rapidly.
As they develop and get stronger economically, they will display a tendency to expand their market and encroach upon other territories. So Nepal is likely to be dragged by these two rising powers into their competing spheres of influence. Also, with rising contention between the US and China, Nepal is in danger of sliding into a vortex of a new conflict. There already are signs of a new cold war.
This is the time for our political leadership to wake up and deliver. I hope they do. But even if that does not happen, I am optimistic in that this is the era of democracy, of enlightenment, and of information technology, and that we cannot go backward. As such, I do not see any danger of political regression.
Again, if the political leadership fails to make a fundamental socio-economic transformation, the frustrated youth might again resort to another revolt. Before that happens, people like us who have played a role in this political change have to see the coming danger and reorganize politics in an alternative way, so that we can deliver on the socio-economic front.
The author is a former prime minister
Female political appointees few and far between
4 In key appointments
APEX Series
WOMEN IN POLITICS
Currently there are five commissioners (including the chief commissioner) at the Election Commission (EC), a constitutional body mandated to hold federal, provincial and local level elections. Of the five, Ila Sharma is the only female commissioner. It’s ironic that the commission, which is responsible for ensuring the representation of 33 percent women in the national and provincial parliaments and in political parties, is itself un-inclusive. The Public Service Commission (PSC), another constitutional body mandated to select public servants on an inclusive basis, also suffers from inadequate female representation. Of its six members (including a chairperson), only one—Brinda Hada Bhattarai—is female. Both these key constitutional bodies, with the responsibility of implementing the nation’s policy of inclusion, are rather exclusionary.
Other bodies share the same fate. The Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) is another important constitutional body where the representation of women is poor. Sabitri Gurung is the only female commissioner at the CIAA. The situation at the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) is also disappointing; of its six commissioners, Mohana Ansari is the only woman. No constitutional body in the country is headed by a woman.
There is no official record of political appointments of women, but observers say the low number of female appointees is an old problem. The government makes dozens of political appointments (besides those to the federal and provincial parliaments and to the cabinet), but very few appointees are women. This clearly shows the political parties’ disinclination to ensure the constitutionally-required representation of women in state organs.
The situation has remained unchanged even after the promulgation of a new constitution in 2015, the holding of three tiers of elections in 2017, and the formation of a government with a two-third majority last year. Now, there is a tendency of appointing a token number of women just to show commitment to the principle of inclusion.
In the third week of January this year, the government recommended the heads of five commissions—National Natural Resources and Fiscal Commission, National Inclusion Commission, Madhesi Commission, Tharu Commission and Muslim Commission. None of the five recommended chiefs is a woman.
In letter, not spirit
These commissions were envisioned by the constitution to promote an inclusive polity, but the approach taken to make appointments to them is not inclusive. This is a clear violation of the constitution, whose article 283 says: “Appointments to offices of constitutional organs and bodies shall be made in accordance with the inclusive principle.”
When it comes to political appointments to other state apparatuses, women’s representation is nominal as well. The core idea behind having a certain number of female political appointees is to ensure adequate representation of women in important decision-making processes. Since women are severely underrepresented in political institutions, observers say due attention should be given to securing a minimum number of seats for women.
“There is a flawed understanding among our political leaders that women cannot take up leadership and carry out their responsibilities well,” says Manchala Jha, a member of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). “If women are given an opportunity, they are fully capable of leading constitutional and other state bodies,” she adds. Besides Jha, the TRC has one other female member (Madhabi Bhatta).
The basic principle behind political appointments is recruiting experts in specific fields. However, women with close connections to political parties are being appointed and those without such connections are denied the same opportunities. In other words, political cadres without the necessary expertise are being appointed to important positions.
Observers say the appointment of women with political access and connection does not fulfill the basic principle of inclusion, and that women from marginalized communities without political affiliations must get opportunities.
“Political appointments since the Panchayat era clearly demonstrate that women with better political connections are getting all the opportunities,” says Harihar Birahi, former President of the Federation of Nepalese Journalists. Bihari, who has been closely following the country’s political developments for several decades, says women close to the monarchy were appointed to government positions during the Panchayat period. “Right through the past five decades, capable women without good political connections have been passed over in favor of less deserving candidates with such connections,” says Birahi.
Old problem
There is no official record of the political appointments made during the Panchayat and the democratic periods. But very few women were politically appointed during the Panchayat era for a few reasons. First, the number of educated women during that period was very low and it was difficult to find the appropriate person. Second, few places were allocated for political appointments. Third, the concepts of inclusion and women’s empowerment were not firmly established and there was no pressure group to take up the issue of women’s representation.
Birahi says the Panchayat regime appointed very few women to government bodies. “Now the space for political appointments has expanded, and there has been some progress in women’s representation but still not up to a desirable level,” he says.
Although there are enough qualified women now and sufficient space for appointing them, political parties are seemingly hesitant to do so. Even in offices that meet the constitutional requirement of female representation, the roles and contributions of women are not always properly recognized. There are complaints that women’s opinions are not heeded while making important decisions. Often women also carry the extra burden of having to go beyond the call of duty to prove they are as qualified as their male counterparts.
Ambassadorship is another area where the government makes political appointments. According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Nepal has embassies in 30 countries, of which two—those in Oman and Japan—have women ambassadors who were politically appointed: Sarmila Parajuli Dhakal and Prativa Rana respectively. Rana, who is the mother-in-law of the Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba, was appointed by the previous government. Besides Dhakal and Rana, Sewa Lamsal Adhikari is a woman ambassador (to Pakistan), but she’s a joint secretary at the MoFA, not a political appointee.
Lucky Sherpa, who was serving as the Nepali Ambassador to Australia, stepped down a few days ago after being accused of human trafficking, although she has denied the charges. In 2012, Maya Kumar Sharma, who was serving as the Nepali Ambassador to Qatar, was recalled over her objectionable remarks against the Gulf nation.
Disturbing patterns
Among those most recently recommended for an ambassadorial position, the only woman is Anjan Shakya (to Israel). There is already criticism that Shakya was chosen directly under Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli’s order: The two are distant relatives.
The current pattern of ambassadorial appointments clearly goes against constitutional provisions. Article 282 of the constitution says, “The President may, on the basis of the principle of inclusion, appoint Nepalese ambassadors and special emissaries for any specific purposes.”
In contrast, powerful countries are appointing female ambassadors to Nepal. Hou Yanqi is the new Chinese Ambassador to Nepal. Other countries have also appointed female ambassadors to Nepal. Egypt, Bangladesh, Brazil, Sri Lanka and China have female ambassadors in Kathmandu, as does the European Union.
Besides constitutional bodies and ambassadorial positions, political appointments are made to public enterprises, which are under government control. But again, very few women have been appointed to these bodies. And the heads of state-owned Nepal Television, Radio Nepal, Rastriya Samachar Samiti and Gorkhapatra Cooperation are all politically appointed males.
Political appointment is an overlooked issue in Nepal. Women leaders and members of the civil society haven’t exerted enough pressure on the government and political parties to ensure 33 percent female representation in political appointments. The current scenario is unlikely to change unless women leaders from across the political spectrum come together to build pressure. Similarly, the Public Service Commission should compel the government to ensure that at least a third of the political appointees are women.
Good in intent, poor in execution
The Oli government appears proactive in diplomacy. Even though Pradeep Gyawali heads the foreign ministry, all major foreign policy decisions are taken by the prime minister. On foreign policy, PM Oli has prioritized diplomatic visits along with ambassadorial appointments and fixing of diplomatic priorities. Soon after becoming prime minister, Oli welcomed his then counterpart from Pakistan, Shahid Khaqan Abbasi. In parsing Abbasi’s Kathmandu visit, the close China-Pakistan link was invoked at the time, as was India and Pakistan’s mutual animosity. But even before that, Indian External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj had already come to Nepal to wish the PM-in-waiting best of luck, in another visit that was loaded with geopolitical significance.
Emphasizing the role of India and China in Nepal’s development, PM Oli has repeatedly called for more investment in Nepal from the two big neighbors. PM Oli visited India immediately after joining the government. People had expected him to visit China soon after. But he refrained, apparently not to annoy India so early in his term. In fact, Oli came to power with the promise of completely rewriting relations with India and China. He also promised better relations with Gulf and donor countries and declared Nepal would adopt country-specific foreign policy, and that Nepali diplomacy would chart new paths.
OLI’S FOREIGN POLICY
The prime minister took a bold step to remove India’s field office in Biratnagar
But he seems confused. President Bidya Devi Bhandari’s purposeless Qatar visit, his own needless Costa Rica visit and also the later hosting of the Asia Pacific Summit gave mixed messages to the international community. Government co-hosted the Asia Pacific Summit even though it was being organized by a religion-promoting INGO. Most recently, he was at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. PM Oli did not get to address an important session there and returned home empty-handed.
PM Oli has in recent times been known as someone keen to cultivate ties with China. Yes, he did go to China one and half months after his India visit, but there could be no consensus on implementation of any of the important bilateral projects in the pipeline. The proposed cross-country railway also didn’t materialize, even though the prime minister does not tire of talking about it. Most crucially, the financial modality of Kerung-Kathmandu Rail is as yet unclear. Nor is PM Oli’s bid to make Nepal a ‘vibrant economic bridge’ between India and China anywhere close to fruition.
The government seems to be working at its own sweet pace. It has appointed ambassadors in vacant missions, however, it seems ill-equipped to handle geopolitics. In the meantime, Foreign Minister Pradeep Gyawali visited United States along with India and China. He has already gone to the European Union head offices twice. Gyawali became the first Nepali foreign minister to officially visit the US, where he assured the Americans of Nepal’s central role in the Indo-Pacific and of cooperation on North Korean issues.
But PM Oli and his government have also done some good. He took a bold step to remove India’s field office in Biratnagar. His initiative to make Indian Prime Minister Modi’s visit to Nepal happen and his successful hosting of the BIMSTEC Summit were both appreciated.
Speaking in Davos, PM Oli emphasized the need for deeper cooperation in trade, investment and connectivity in South Asia as the region has tremendous potential for economic growth through mutual cooperation. That may be true but he didn’t then specify how greater regional cooperation was possible.
Most recently, the needless ruckus that the ruling Nepal Communist Party caused over Venezuela, thereby alienating the US, was more evidence of the immaturity of this government’s diplomacy.
In sum, the Oli government seems confused about its foreign policy priorities. The prime minister seems to have the right intent, as is evident in some of his laudable diplomatic initiatives. What his government is failing in is execution.
Big-mess Nepal
Nepal is in a deep mess and there’s no way out. Recent events prove we have no reason to be optimistic. First, the Bibeksheel-Sajha split. When the party of bright Nepali youth merged with the party of a foreign returned journalist, most of us were excited. We hoped that soon it would emerge as an exemplary party that would force the dominant parties to become democratic, responsible and accountable. But it turned out, the party was no different to other parties and despite big talks of democratizing Nepal, it itself lacked inner democracy. The potential third force split before it could even begin to make a difference.
We also witnessed the defeat of Dr Govinda KC who was fighting against the commercialization of medical education that makes health care expensive for poor Nepalis. But the democratic “communist” government of one of the poorest countries in the world stood for exactly the opposite and had its way. Both houses of the parliament endorsed the watered-down medical education bill. The opposition could do nothing. The medical bill was passed by our parliament. And all were in it together, the opposition and the so called—and self-declared— prominent members of the civil society and rights activists.
The opposition is morally bankrupt, corrupt, divided, and hence weak. As such it could not mount an effective opposition against the government’s bullying. Or could it be that there was a tacit understanding between the government and the opposition, not to open the file on NC’s involvement in the controversial purchase of the wide body aircraft? What a win-win for the both parties, and a lose-lose for Nepal.
And while the political parties were in a hush-hush win-win trade off with each other, the recently appointed Chief Justice Cholendra Shumser Rana suspended and took action against some “ill-intended” judges on big scandals, including the 33 kg gold smuggling, and tax evasion by a major telecom provider. When even the judges start making “mistakes” it only means one thing: we are messed up big time. Flee the country, young men and women, while you can.
In addition to this domestic freak-show, our leaders also left no stone unturned to make sure we messed up diplomatically as well. The US invited our foreign minister Pradeep Gyawali to DC to discuss Nepal’s role in the Indo-Pacific Strategy. But we—the flag-bearers of the non-aligned movement—had to see something sinister behind a natural and harmless alliance. The distressing thing about Nepal’s decision to not join the strategy was the way we said it.
Instead of rejecting the American proposal outright, we could have slept on it and carefully weighed the pros and cons. We could have asked for time and what America would provide us in return for our participation. We could have asked the next foreign ministerial meeting be held in Kathmandu. That would have been a mature thing to do and prove to the Americans and our neighbors that we are serious about our national interests and cultivating our friends near and far.
By refusing even further deliberations on the issue, we proved that we are immature when it comes to maintaining good relations with a country that has been a good friend of Nepal for the past 70 years. If the government thought it made the Chinese happy by its immaturity in DC, the Chinese were unmoved, as is evident by the Chinese proposal to reduce the number of projects under its Belt and Road Initiative in Nepal.
If this was not enough, Comrade Prachanda, one of the two chairs of the ruling Nepal Communist Party, had to issue a strong statement denouncing America’s role in Venezuela. He could have kept quiet or just issued a milder statement to prove his revolutionary credentials and to keep himself relevant in whatever global communist movement he fancies. He as always hinted he was misquoted and was hoodwinked into issuing it. Then, soon after, came another statement that said the party stands by its earlier statement.
In a fitting quid pro quo, the American ambassador did not attend a diplomatic briefing held by the Nepali government. The message was clear: if you don’t value our friendship by undiplomatically rejecting our Indo-Pacific proposal, and then go on to denounce us for what we do in our backyard, then we too will make our displeasure obvious—of course, diplomatically.
All these episodes show we are not getting better and have nothing to be hopeful about. Expect more unpleasant surprises on both domestic and diplomatic fronts and stop reading the news to save yourself from depression.
