An inclusive society is a beautiful concept. What could be better than people of all casts and castes living in harmony and collectively contributing to the establishment of a progressive society? The problem is that there is no perfectly inclusive society anywhere in the world, although some places like the United States which was built by immigrants from diverse backgrounds, come close. Such an inclusive society is still more uncommon in the Third World, which has its own set of challenges that militate against an inclusive, multicultural and multiethnic society. In relatively poor Nepal with great socio-cultural and ethnic diversity, the challenge can seem insurmountable. But that is no reason not to try, for even a small measure of success could have big ramifications on the establishment of a peaceful and prosperous Nepal. The ushers for this change have to be the political parties, the articulators of people’s needs and aspirations. No matter how hard the project might seem at the outset, it is upon them to make people believe that a measure of inclusion is possible in the new federal democratic republic. But when the same political parties that don’t tire of talking about inclusion of dalits, janajatis, women and Madheshis practice exclusion, it is very hard to sell ‘inclusion’ to common people.
Despite their avowed stands, most of Nepal’s political parties can hardly be called inclusive. The main decision making bodies of all three of the country’s biggest parties—UCPN (Maoist), Nepali Congress and CPN-UML—continue to be dominated by Brahmins and Chhetris, who make up 50 to 60 percent of the bodies and hold almost all powerful posts. In UCPN (Maoist), the Party Headquarters does not have a single woman, Dalit or Madhesi representative. All 10 of UML Standing Committee members are from Brahmin or Chhetri communities. The situation in Nepali Congress is no better, as most of its top posts are also occupied by the so-called upper castes. Similar exclusionary trends can be seen in the Tarai-based parties, most of which are dominated by personality cults. The common trend is for the leader to enlist his community members to fill up important posts. For instance, the central committee of MJF (Nepal) led by Upendra Yadav is dominated by Yadavs, who make up 43.9 percent of all CC members.
The gender balance is equally skewed. UCPN (Maoist) central committee has only 13.56 percent women representatives, which is less than the percentage of women representatives in central committees of NC (21. 25 percent) and UML (18.26 percent), the parties that the Maoists tend to mock as ‘status quoist’. But even these traditional forces fall woefully short of meeting their avowed commitment to gender balance: UML Party Constitution provisions for 33 percent women in its central committee; only 18.26 percent are represented. One of the biggest reasons for this skewed picture is the reluctance of the old male-dominated order to make way for the new. UML Vice Chairman Bamdev Gautam, for instance, feels that the reason UML has so few women and dalit/janajati leaders is because “there is not a single woman capable of handling the leadership…” and “Brahmins and Chhetries make more capable leaders…” So long as such strong stereotypes guide policymaking, there is little hope of meaningful change. For such a change, people’s representatives should be willing to rise above their prejudices and push through measures that will go beyond the existing socio-cultural boundaries.
Related story
China's ghost weddings, a practice that may send a chill down y...
