Among the 10-point agreement signed by the representatives of the GenZ and the Federal Government, one of the most exciting is the creation of the GenZ Council.
Setting up such a body offers the biggest opportunity to establish a more direct, participatory and deliberative form of democracy in the country, enabling the new generations of citizens to have a direct say in how Nepal is run. But it is going to be vital to design this new body in the right way, ensuring that this will be an institution that is effective and meaningful rather than being tokenistic.
First off, let’s start with what the GenZ Council should not aspire to become. The country already has the National Youth Council that is neither particularly effective nor truly representative. To be fair, this body was never intended to become a platform to give youths a voice and amplify their demands.
Rather, it was created to promote youth empowerment through programs and initiatives. This is why the GenZ Council should demark and distinguish itself and should resemble a chamber or assembly, a permanent forum for discussions and deliberations by the youths and for the youths of the nation.
Therefore, it would be much more appropriate to design it as a “GenZ Assembly”, an institution that cannot only complement but also strengthen the current parliamentary system in place. Ideally, this new body should embrace key principles of deliberative democracy where citizens rather than just those elected have a real say.
For this reason, the GenZ Council should free itself from the cumbersome burden of elective politics. As we do know, liberal democracy based on elections has a lot of problematic issues and must be supported by more direct forms of deliberative mechanisms. Consequently, it is also important that the new GenZ Council shuns party politics. Its members would be individual youths acting and importantly, deliberating on their own, without any political affiliation.
But what does the word “deliberation” mean in the context of GenZ Council? To start with, we are not talking about binding deliberations. Deliberations can be seen as detailed propositions that, following a rigorous process of debate based on expertise and knowledge, would be voted by the members of the council. Ensuring that voting will only happen after a clear process of logical discussions is paramount.
How could this work in practice? Let’s take as an example, a possible deliberative process around the pros and cons of lowering the minimum marriageable age. Each member of the GenZ Council would have the right to table a motion, in practice, a policy idea, that, in a follow up step, would be analyzed and discussed mandatorily. In our example, a member would propose a change in the current law related to the minimum marriageable age.
Similar and connected motions could be clubbed together in a holistic fashion and discussed. After these first two initial phases, submission of a motion and its initial discussion, a first round of voting would occur where the members would decide to bring this motion forward.
What does it mean?
If a motion is voted to be brought forward, it will be further discussed, elaborated and deliberated in the form of a proposition, basically a proposal that at the very end will be finally voted by all the members. In this final stage of the deliberative process, members of the GenZ Council will have to vote if, to them, it makes sense or not to lower the minimum marriageable age.
Finally, a proposition that is voted favorably will be submitted to the federal government in the form of a recommendation that would have to either accept or reject it. The federal government would commit to officially respond in written form and also officially to each of the recommendations sent by the GenZ Council in the House of Representative, the lower chamber of the Parliament. The Federal Government should also include mandatorily explaining why some of these might have been rejected.
In future, the propositions voted by the GenZ Council could be made even mandatory but this would require more time for the country to fully understand and welcome deliberative democracy practices, basically accepting the idea of a new form of more participatory decision making.
In the immediate, the GenZ Council could also have the authority of providing feedback to each bill being formulated by the legislative. A key aspect would be how to ensure a fully representative and inclusive representation of the youths in the Council. In the field of deliberation, sortition (lottery) is a key aspect.
At first instance, it might appear as something bizarre and strange but around the world, it is how deliberative democracy happens also by taking advantage of software programs designed for the purpose. A pragmatic approach could be used to establish the Council for the first time, one that will not entirely rely on sortition. The Federal Government would nominate 25 percent of its members based on certain criteria. We can imagine this as a sort of quota that would ensure the participation of the current leaders of the GenZ movement where all major groups are included. Ideally, each Provincial Government or Assembly could also appoint a quota but this is tricky and would make things complicated also because of network/patronage related issues.
Then what about the remaining 75 percent seats? They should be allocated in an open and transparent way. As daunting as it might sound, all youths could apply but how to do so? One option would be to use sortition for all these remaining 75 percent of the seats. A second option would see that 25 percent of these seats be decided on merits based while the other 50 percent remaining seats would be allocated through lottery.
In short, this system would imply that everyone that applies to be in the Council would stand a chance of being part of it. It will be certainly paramount that a quota system with a proportional representation of disadvantaged groups will also be guaranteed. Another key question is how long should its members remain in the council? A balance between not too short and not too long tenure must be struck. Members of the council should stay in power for one year or 18 months and they would not again be eligible to be part of the council in future.
A two-year cycle could also be envisioned but it is going to be essential to ensure that “space” for participation” opens up recurrently otherwise we would be at risk of institutionalizing a new elite of youths. What about the complex logistics of the meeting?
There could be at least three meetings in person and then have mandatory periodic online sessions where every citizen could assist and watch and possibly, have the opportunity of providing also some suggestions for the members. This aspect is important because it would enable other youths to feel connected and have a role. Participating in the Council should be a voluntary undertaking even if it is a time-consuming one.
At the most, a very basic monthly allowance (a sort of reimbursement) for its members could be entertained plus the transportation and lodging costs for those coming from outside the Kathmandu Valley for its in person sessions. The GenZ Council, if designed and implemented right away, can be a transformative democratic tool that could inspire better, more inclusive forms of decision-making.
A revised constitution could make it a constitutional body even without going to the extent of granting it with binding decision powers that the legislative and executive powers will have to respect. As the time is running short, the first iteration of the GenZ Council will be far from being perfect also because its design could be made through a more open process. Yet what at the end will count is that at least this new body that is being shaped could emanate hope that youths of this country can have a truly meaningful role in the way decisions are taken.
