Leader in South Asia on women MPs. But still a long way to go
2 In the legislature
APEX Series
WOMEN IN POLITICS
4 In key appointments
5 Overall picture
With 33 percent women representatives in both the federal parliament and provincial assemblies, Nepal outranks other Asian countries when it comes to female representation in parliament. A close study of parliaments formed after Nepal’s first parliamentary elections in 1959 clearly shows that women’s representation is increasing, thanks to some strict constitutional and legal provisions. There has been improvement on this front despite the political leadership’s reluctance to provide due space to female lawmakers. This week, we explore the representation of women in our legislative branch, in what is the second part of the five-part APEX “Women in politics” series.
In 1959, Nepal elected its first bicameral parliament through a general election. Of the 109 members elected, only one was female. Dwarika Devi Thakurani was in fact Nepal’s first Member of Parliament. She later became a member of the BP Koirala-led cabinet in 1959, in what was Nepal’s first democratically elected government.
After King Mahendra dissolved Nepal’s first parliament as well as the Koirala government and imposed a party-less regime in 1960, there was no democratically elected parliament during the three-decade-long Panchayat era. Instead there was the Rastriya Panchayat, a mixed bag of people appointed directly by the King and zonal representatives favored by the regime. The first Rastriya Panchayat formed in 1963 had three women. During the entire Panchayat regime, women’s representation was nominal.
After the restoration of democracy in 1990, women’s representation increased slightly, but was still very low. In the first parliament elected in 1991, there were six women MPs. The number reached seven in 1994 and 12 in 1999.
"Naturally, it would be easier for female lawmakers to highlight women’s issues, but they are yet to play the role expected of them. They are learning though" Sashi Kala Dahal, Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly
The bare minimum
The historic changes of 2006 and the subsequent interim constitution of 2007 fixed the minimum number of women in the national parliament, compelling political parties to abide by it. In many cases, the parties tried to flout the constitutional requirement. But now the provision of 33 percent women’s representation in the parliament is firmly established.
Still, the parties have only fulfilled the minimum constitutional requirement and have not taken proactive measures to increase the number of women MPs.
In the first Constituent Assembly (CA) in 2008, the number of women elected under the first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system was 30, which represented just 12.5 percent of the total parliamentarians elected under the system. As many as 26 of these women lawmakers were affiliated to the then Maoist party. The constitutionally-mandated 33 percent women’s representation was fulfilled in the first CA through proportionate representation.
The percentage of women parliamentarians who won under the FPTP system came down to 4.17 in the second CA elections in 2013, which elected only 10 female candidates. Women’s total representation also fell to 30 percent, which was an open violation of the interim constitution. Despite pressure from the Election Commission, parties were reluctant to ensure 33 percent representation of women.
The number of women who win under the FPTP system is still very low. It is primarily because the party leadership thinks women candidates cannot win direct elections. But there is another side to the story; top women leaders of major parties prefer to be MPs under the Proportional Representation (PR) category, with almost guaranteed election, whereas contesting an election is always a risky bet. (Perhaps they are well aware of their slim chance of winning in what is still largely a patriarchal society.)
Not in leadership
In the current House of Representative (HoR), of the 165 lawmakers elected under the FPTP category, only six are women. The political parties met the constitutional requirement by selecting more women in the PR category.
Of the 275 HoR members, 90 are women (32.7 percent). And of the 59 National Assembly (NA) members, 22 are women (37.3 percent). However, women are not in leadership positions. Both the speakers are male whereas the deputy speakers are female. (Shashikala Dahal is the deputy speaker of the NA and Shiva Maya Tumbahambe is the deputy speaker of the HoR.) In the provincial assemblies, all deputy speakers are women. This clearly shows women’s secondary role and position—from the center, down to the grassroots.
However, in a recent noteworthy achievement, in the second Constituent Assembly (CA), Onsari Gharti was elected the first female Speaker in Nepal’s parliamentary history. Gharti was a leader of the then CPN (Maoist Center). The second CA was transformed into a parliament after the constitution’s promulgation in September 2015.
There is also the provision of 33 percent women’s representation in the parliamentary committees, which are considered mini-parliaments. Of the 12 parliamentary committees under the HoR, women lawmakers lead four. Of the four committees under the NA, women lawmakers lead two.
Article 84(8) of the constitution clearly states: “Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Part, at least one third of the total number of members elected from each political party representing in the Federal Parliament must be women. If women are not so elected as to constitute one third of the elected members of any political party… such political party must, in electing members… so elect that women members constitute at least one third of the total number of members elected to the Federal Parliament from the party.”
Provisional figures
Women’s representation in the provincial assemblies is satisfactory, but not particularly encouraging in that the parties have just met the constitutional provision of 33 percent women’s representation but not gone beyond that. In the 93-member Provincial Assembly (PA) in Province 1, there are 31 women.
In the 107-member PA in Province 2, there are 35 women. In Province 3, there are 36 women in the 110-member PA. The 60-member PA in Province 4 has 20 women. The number of women in the 87-member PA in Province 5 is 29. There are 13 women in the 40-member PA in Province 6 and 17 women in the 53-member PA in Province 7.
A report of the global Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) says: “With 33.5 percent women parliamentarians in the two houses of the Federal Parliament, Nepal is well above the global average of 23.8 percent women parliamentarians.” The average for Asian countries is 19.8 percent. The report says Nepal is ranked 37th out of 193 countries, followed, among South Asian countries, by Afghanistan (55), Pakistan (93), Bangladesh (95), India (147), Bhutan (170), Maldives (178) and Sri Lanka (180).
Globally the number of women in parliaments seems to have stagnated at around 23 percent and women’s progress in politics has been painfully slow. According to the Secretary General of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, it will take 50 years to achieve 50-50 parity at this rate.
Nepali women lawmakers say their representation in the parliament has contributed to highlight the myriad issues women face. “Naturally, it would be easier for female lawmakers to highlight women’s issues, but they are yet to play an effective role expected of them. They are learning though,” says Sashi Kala Dahal, Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly. She says women are heading some parliamentary committees effectively. “The role of women lawmakers will be more effective as they gain experience in parliamentary practice,” she says.
But Dahal wasn’t happy that deputy speakers of provincial assemblies are ranked below an undersecretary in the new precedence order in Provincial Assembly, and thinks that it needs to be corrected.
With women’s increasing numbers, and hopefully more meaningful participation, in the national and provincial legislatures, we can expect them to formulate laws that address the problems faced by women, who constitute 51 percent of Nepal’s population. Other laws will also be more balanced.
Mental math for PM Oli
It’s good that Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, along with his advisors and cabinet members, took part in the World Economic Forum (WEF) 2019. On Jan 22 and 23, PM Oli addressed two panels titled “Strategic outlook on South Asia” and “Shaping the future of Democracy” respectively. Our prime minister attending the global platform and making an effort to draw world attention to a small country like Nepal carries enormous symbolic value. Let’s congratulate him on this. He did the right thing by attending the forum. In the past few years, the WEF has evolved into a social and political forum, shifting away from its original focus on promoting free trade and globalization. There is increasing realization among the forum’s organizers about the close relation between economic and social development. This becomes clear if we look at this year’s themes.
Among the major themes this year were globalization, climate change, mental health, the rise of populism, China’s economy and Brexit. For the first time, the forum prioritized mental well-being and there were six sessions on mental health covering topics like depression, anxiety, loneliness and Alzheimer’s. Prince William, the Duke of Cambridge, is one famous face who has in the past raised the issue of mental health at the WEF.
There will definitely be a lot of discussion on PM Oli’s formal and informal talks on the sidelines of the Davos summit. What I would like to do here is draw PM Oli’s attention to mental health, something I have been involved with for a long time.
Nepal is a young country. Of the nearly 30 million Nepalis, around 35 percent fall under the age group 25-54, which is considered the most productive years. Only around 5 percent of the population is estimated to be above 65 years.
Because of a diverse array of factors, Nepalis are increasingly suffering from mental health problems. As there is a dearth of opportunity for Nepali youth in their own country, they go abroad to work. Others leave the country for education and never return. While this may be economically beneficial for the migrants and their families, the separation it entails creates many emotional and psychological problems. Today, many households in Nepal function more or less like old-age homes.
Among those who return from abroad, many will have passed their working age, and the state is constitutionally bound to take care of its senior citizens. That will put the exchequer under enormous stress.
Nepal invests almost one-fifth of its national budget on social protection, covering socially vulnerable groups like children, those with disabilities, single women, the poor and the elderly. The government increases its social security budget every year as the proportion of the socially vulnerable population, including the elderly, keeps growing.
From a mental health perspective, Oli’s visit to Davos could have been an eye-opener. After being briefed on those Davos sessions on mental health, perhaps he now has a better inkling of how poverty and migration affect the well-being of his people.
Therefore, post-Davos, PM Oli should adopt a two-pronged strategy in order to avert this impending crisis. His first focus should be on creating productive jobs for the youth so that they have every incentive to stay behind and work in their own country. His second focus should be on investing in the mental well-being of his people.
It is long past the time that we seriously discussed our mental well-being in the changed social and political context. For instance, loneliness is no more a problem of rich western countries alone. It’s emerging as a major issue in developing eastern countries too. How we tackle the mental health issues of our people will also determine the country’s fate. Prime Minister Oli, please take note.
Inside job ?
On Nov 15, 2018, Madan Kharel, the then newly appointed Executive Chair of the Nepal Airlines Corporation (NAC), held a press conference flanked by his deputies, including Managing Director Sugat Raj Kansakar. The press conference was called to address the White Paper issued by the NAC management on the national flag carrier’s financial health and long-term plans.The media basically carried the pronouncements verbatim. No critical questions were asked and there was no effort to even check the math presented in the event. The message that came out the press conference was clear: The NAC is on the brink of bankruptcy and the government would have to inject cash to bail it out.
The timing of the press conference, which came hot on the heels of reportedly advanced discussions with Ethiopian Airlines for a strategic partnership, was also suspect. To be fair, the Tourism Ministry itself has recommended that the government inject Rs 20 billion as part of its plan to restructure the NAC. While the NAC’s financial health isn’t great, it does earn significant revenue from ground handling alone—about Rs 3.5 billion annually, the same as the total annual repayments on its four Airbus loans. That is a significant cushion.
The optics of the press conference has hurt both the NAC’s attempts to find a strategic partner and its branding efforts among customers. Who would want to invest in a company that is about to file for bankruptcy? Even if that was not the intention, that has been the effect. The airlines business, like any other, revolves around managing perceptions. Would passengers want to fly in an airline if its management is openly talking about its potential bankruptcy? Even on a good day, the NAC is known for delaying or cancelling flights, or worse, grounding its fleet.
This week the NAC has told its creditors it cannot service its quarterly installments
An open secret
This week the NAC has told its creditors it cannot service its quarterly installments due for January and has asked for an extension. This despite no significant reduction in its total earnings in December-January. Is this another stunt to kill two birds with one stone: force the government to inject cash while deterring any potential strategic partner?
There are plenty of reasons to doubt the NAC management’s willingness to bring in a strategic partner; a new partner means a change in the management philosophy and style. Would the current appointees really give up their lucrative perch? A perch that provides them with all kinds of perks and privileges without corresponding expectations and certification of a good performance. Even without bringing in a strategic partner, what plagues the NAC is an open secret: mismanagement.
Two core issues
The national flag carrier’s administrators, most of whom are political appointees, have been unable and unwilling to do what is required of them to make the corporation profitable. There are two core issues: overstaffing and mismanagement of the fleet and flight schedules. Even if laying off excessive staff is politically touchy given how unionized government entities are, the NAC should still make profits just by flying the four new Airbuses 18 hours each. And there is the additional cushion from the ground handling business. This combined with a strict fleet maintenance regime would address its perennial image problem by ensuring minimum delays or cancellations—thus increasing its market share. The NAC flies in such profitable destinations that there is no reason its flight occupancy should be at 50 percent, other than its image problem of being extremely unreliable.
For both potential partners and customers, the press conference perpetuated that perception, albeit in different ways: for investors, it amplified the risk factors and for customers, it gave them another reason not to fly with the airline. Increasingly, the NAC’s problems appear more like internal sabotage than just corruption and incompetence.
Playground bullies
I’m pretty much an introvert and it took me decades to speak up for myself and against injustice. But a couple of weeks ago I really had enough. In my regular haunt in Lazimpat, where I eat at least twice a week, mainly breakfast but also lunch, a woman came in, wrapped up in a down jacket, hood up, sunglasses on, carrying two huge bags of shopping. She sat by the window so I didn’t hear what she ordered but I did heard her ask for water, then a spoon, then the wifi password—okay so far; pretty basic stuff. She continued to ask for a whole list of other, pretty unnecessary, items from the busy staff. When her food arrived my attention was drawn again by her loud voice. The food was just ‘not right’! This was ‘not the way to make pizza at all’. The pizza had too much cheese on it! Well, first, who says this? Ever? Second, why order pizza if you don’t like cheese? The waitress offered to get her something else. In reply to her question, the waitress said, no, she would not have to pay for the second dish, only the pizza. When the second dish arrived, again she was shouting loudly across the room that she didn’t like it.
She suggested the chef be sacked to let ‘one of the many unemployed in Nepal take his job’. One of the many, who ‘could make much better food than him’! The young waiter and waitress were looking quite helpless now and this was all I could take. I marched over to her table and told her, “if you don’t like the food, fine, it’s down to personal taste, but there is no need to announce loudly across the restaurant. You could go and discuss with the chef; why blame the waiters?” I also pointed out that the food was fabulous, as the many regular customers would agree. Quietly she paid up and left the restaurant still muttering that the food was not good. I later asked the waitress if she had paid. Yes, but only for the cheaper second dish.
While it was easy for me to challenge one woman, it is harder to stand up to the big bullies in this world
Somehow she was the epitome of what is wrong with the world at the moment. Those who shout loudest and who assume a mantel of control and confidence often get away with a lot of nonsense, while the rest of us look helplessly on. The world is watching the unfolding (or perhaps crumbling) of the latest nonsense coming out of the White House. One man is shouting louder than others, taking control of things he is not qualified for other than by ceremonial office. There is very little anyone else can do except quietly down-tools, and make what is probably no more than a symbolic gesture.
Across the Atlantic in the UK we watch while the politicians fight among themselves as to who has the best ability to take over the playground, aka Brexit, negotiations. Of course, I could go on to list many more examples of bullies flexing their muscles while we regular folks are in despair wondering what the outcome will be. It does seem that the only person who may benefit from all this mayhem is another larger than life playground bully looking on from afar, but seeing ample potential to step in once the other kids exhaust themselves with all their infighting. Isn’t this the way conflict starts?
While it was easy for me to challenge one woman and stand up for those who were, momentarily, unable to speak for themselves, it is harder to stand up to the big bullies in this world. Especially if they have the power and ability to take away our liberty through muzzling the press, imprisoning us, or replacing us with their cronies.
