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.
Women’s woeful presence in the executive bodies
3 In the executive
APEX Series
WOMEN IN POLITICS
5 Overall picture
The male bias in cabinets
Despite the constitutional provision of 33 percent women’s representation introduced after 2007, there has not been much improvement in female representation in the cabinet. An examination of all the cabinets formed after 2007 shows that women’s representation remains frustratingly low. After the promulgation of the interim constitution in 2007, 10 cabinets have been formed but none has 33 percent representation of women.
Even after the promulgation of the constitution in 2015, the number of women in the cabinet has not increased significantly. Women’s representation in key decision-making bodies remains disappointing. Women have generally been relegated to the posts of deputies in local bodies and state ministers in provincial governments.
In the federal cabinet led by the Nepal Communist Party (NCP) Chairman KP Sharma Oli, there are 22 ministers and three state ministers. Only three of the 22 ministers are women—Tham Maya Thapa (Minister for Women, Children and Senior Citizen), Bina Magar (Minister for Water) and Padma Kumari Aryal (Minister for Land Management, Cooperatives and Poverty). Of the three state ministers, one is woman—Ram Kumari Chaudhary (State Minister for Agriculture and Livestock). This is a clear violation of the constitutional provision that requires 33 percent women’s representation in all state organs. Among the 22 ministers, Thapa, Magar and Aryal hold 14th, 21st and 22nd positions respectively in the cabinet. In principle, the council of ministers constitutes ministers, state ministers and deputy ministers, but the state and deputy ministers are barred from participating in cabinet meetings.
A few days ago, Minister Thapa publicly demanded 33 percent women’s representation in the cabinet. Ruling party leaders didn’t pay any heed.
Constitutional and legal provisions stipulate that all three levels of government should appoint 33 percent women, but political parties tend to ignore these provisions in areas where the Election Commission (EC) cannot impose its decision. For example, the EC cannot dictate how the cabinet is formed.
In provincial governments too, women’s representation is disappointing. Of the seven provincial governments, Provinces 1 and 3 have no women, which shows sheer negligence on the part of the political parties. In Province 2, there are two women who are state ministers, namely Dimpal Jha and Usha Yadav.
In Province 4, Nara Devi Pun is Minister for Social Development; in Province 5, Aarati Poudel is Minister for Land Management, Agriculture and Cooperative; in Province 6, Bimala KC is Minister for Land Management, Agriculture and Cooperative; and in Province 7, Binita Chaudhary is Minister for Land Reform, Agriculture and Cooperative and Maya Bhatta is Minister for Industry, Tourism, and Forest and Environment. That is it.
In local government
The local election held in 2017 after a two-decade hiatus proved historic in terms of ensuring 33 percent women representation. Currently, there are 753 local level units—six metropolis, 11 sub-metropolis, 276 municipalities and 460 rural municipalities. The local polls elected a total of 35,041 representatives, of whom around 14,000 were women. This means, for the first time in Nepal’s political history, there is 40 percent women’s representation in local governments.
The number of women at the local level increased significantly due to the legal provision imposed by the EC, which provided that 40 percent of all nominee seats be reserved for women candidates. This included the requirement that between the mayor and the deputy mayor, and between the chair and the deputy chair of rural municipalities, political parties has to field at least one woman candidate.
The parties mostly picked a male candidate for the mayor’s post and a female candidate for the deputy mayor’s. That is why an overwhelming number of deputies in the local bodies are female and chiefs are male. At the ward level, the Local Level Electoral Act 2017 has reserved two seats in each of the nearly 7,000 ward committees for women, one of which has to be for a Dalit woman.
History of women in cabinet
Political awareness in the country grew after the overthrow of the Rana regime and the establishment of multi-party democracy in 1951. A cursory analysis of the national cabinets formed after 1951 shows that women’s representation is depressingly low; there were no women in several of these cabinets.
The 10-member cabinet formed after the establishment of democracy in 1951 and led by Mohan Shumsher Rana had no woman. In fact, no Cabinet between 1951 and 1959 had any women. The 20-member cabinet formed on May 27, 1959 and led by the late Nepali Congress leader Bishweshwar Prasad Koirala had one woman member, Dwarika Devi Thakurani, making her the country’s first female minister. That cabinet was soon dissolved by King Mahendra, who then imposed a partyless Panchayat regime that lasted three decades.
The first cabinet led by King Mahendra himself had no woman. In fact, it wasn’t until 1972 that Nepal got another female minister. The cabinet led by Kirti Nidhi Bista in 1972 had one women minister—Kamal Shah—who served as the state minister for health. All cabinets formed between 1972 and 1990, including the interim government led by the late NC leader Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, had only one woman minister—save for the 1988 cabinet that had two women.
1990 to 2007
The first elected government led by the late NC leader Girija Prasad Koirala after the promulgation of a new constitution in 1990 had one woman minister, a number that remained unchanged when the cabinet was later reshuffled. The cabinets formed between 1991 and 1995 saw no representation of women. The cabinet formed under the NC leader Sher Bahadur Deuba in September 1995 had no woman, but when it was reshuffled later in the same year, one female minister was appointed.
In all cabinets formed after 1995, the representation of women was negligible; there was either none or one female cabinet member, with one exception in 1996, which saw three female ministers. All the cabinets from 2001 to 2006 had very low representation of women. In this period, the number of female ministers ranged from one to three.
The first cabinet formed after Janaandolan-2 led by the then NC President Girija Prasad Koirala in April 2006 had no female representation. When the cabinet was reshuffled the following month, two women ministers were inducted.
No improvement after 2007
Despite the constitutional provision of 33 percent women’s representation introduced after 2007, there has not been much improvement in female representation in the cabinet. An examination of all the cabinets formed after 2007 shows that women’s representation remains frustratingly low. After the promulgation of the interim constitution in 2007, 10 cabinets have been formed but none has 33 percent representation of women.
The first cabinet led by the then NC President Girija Prasad Koirala after 2007 had only two women ministers.
After the first Constituent Assembly (CA) election in April 2008, the then Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal formed an eight-member cabinet, which was expanded to 20 members after a few weeks. The number of women ministers in that cabinet was four, a significant improvement from previous cabinets.
On May 25, 2009, the then CPN-UML leader Madhav Kumar Nepal replaced Dahal and formed a two-member cabinet, which was later expanded to nine members, including two women ministers. The cabinet was again expanded to 18, but there was no increase in the representation of women. On February 7, 2011, the then UML leader Jhala Nath Khanal replaced Madhav Kumar Nepal and initially formed a three-member cabinet with no female representation. That cabinet was later reshuffled and expanded to 27 ministers, including eight women. Khanal was succeeded by the then Maoist leader Baburam Bhattarai, whose 36-member Cabinet included 10 women ministers—a huge improvement.
That cabinet was expanded to 38 members and the number of women ministers reached 11. After the dissolution of the CA, the then Chief Justice Khila Raj Regmi-led government, formed in 2013, had 10 ministers, only one of whom was female.
After the second CA election in November 2013, the then NC President Sushil Koirala became prime minister, whose 19-member cabinet had only three women ministers.
Even after the promulgation of the constitution in 2015, which ensured 33 percent women’s representation in all state organs, the number of women in the cabinet has not increased significantly. The government formed under the then CPN-UML Chairman KP Sharma Oli in October 2015 had only two women ministers. When the then Maoist Chairman Dahal replaced Oli, the number of female cabinet members dropped to one. The NC President Sher Bahadur Deuba, who succeeded Dahal in 2017, reshuffled his cabinet six times. In his 56-member ‘jumbo’ cabinet, there were very few women.
Despite some improvement, women’s representation in key decision-making bodies remains low. Women have generally been relegated to the posts of deputies in local bodies and state ministers in provincial governments. This shows that political parties are not serious about meaningful female participation. They should go beyond tokenism and appoint women to key positions in their party as well as in the government.
