| Sajha.com Archives | |
| Username | Post |
| ashu | Posted
on 18-Apr-03 12:12 AM
Hi all, I'll be busy later next week -- attending this seemingly interesting conference in Kathmandu. I hope to hear interesting insights from Pratyoush Onta, Anup Pahari, Shaubhagya Shah, Deepaj Gyawali and others who will be presenting a few working papers on which discussions will be based. I am posting this here on Sajha so that this may also be of interest to other scholars/researchers and others who too like to think deeply and rigorously about issues facing Nepali democracy. Time-permitting, I may -- and this is NOT a promise -- some of the highlights of the conference. oohi ashu ktm,nepal ****************** The Agenda of Transformation: Inclusion in Nepali Democracy Kathmandu 24-26 April 2003 Perhaps the most pressing political issue facing Nepal over the last dozen years of Nepals democracy has been the question of representation and inclusion within that democracy. The hope of the 1990 Peoples Movement was that it would usher in a pluralistic state structure and polity, reflecting the countrys enormous diversity of demography, opinion and experience. It is now amply clear that the people at large do not feel ownership of Nepali democracy. The causes have partly to do with structural challenges such as those inherent in the 1990 Constitution and in the electoral system. But it is also the inability of the institutions to live up to the liberal ideals enshrined in the same Constitution, and these include the political parties, bureaucracy, judiciary, academia, media and civil society as a whole. Many scholars believe that the formal structures of the Nepali polity are adequate, but that they have been misused by opportunistic and short-sighted actors in the political scene. But others are of the view that the Constitution promulgated in 1990 overlooked the diversity of the country in terms of language, ethnicity, region, gender, caste and class. Thus, while recognising Nepal as a multiethnic and multilingual country, the Constitution did not discard the Panchayats conception of Nepal as a monolithic state resting on the pillars of one people, one language, one nation, and even one religion. Voices that pointed out that anomaly were brushed aside as inconsequential to the larger task of nation-building, and demands for change by the historically marginalised groups were ignored. One of the consequences has been the Maobaadi movement and the rapid spread of the insurgency which has now been recognised widely as fed less by ideology and more by the unfulfilment of social expectations raised by the second advent of democracy in 1990. The states response to the voices of discontent took the form of goodwill gestures, such as the establishment of womens and dalit commissions, or an academy for the janajati communities. Meanwhile, Kathmandus academia and the national educated classes as a whole have not been adequately engaged in demanding more sensitivity and action from the governments of the past decade. While discourse has certainly not been lacking in the effervescent Nepali press, there could have been more scholarly commitment towards making Nepali democracy more pluralistic and inclusive. Nepal remains mired in unprecedented political violence as this is written, but it would be wrong to await till this fury blows over to address the agenda of transformation of the polity. The Maobaadi challenge certainly provides the context in which it becomes necessary to study changes necessary in the polity; however, the organisers feel it important to look deeper and beyond the political demands of the Maobaadi, and address the underlying theoretical and practical aspects of creating an inclusive, representative, participatory system of government that rejects the institutionalised neglect and exclusion of the past and present. Processes for introducing participatory democracy at all levels have to be formulated, and grievances articulated over the past twelve years have to be examined, and a strategy devised to incorporate them without undermining the national fabric. While there may be structural and institutional defects, there is no alternative but to make Nepali democracy deliver, particularly for a country that has been through three decades of an unrepresentative Panchayat era. The political system has to be made more representative of the country and people, which is why the Social Science Baha is organising an international conference on 24-26 April 2003 to address the matter of representation, pluralism and inclusion in Nepali democracy. The conference will bring together Nepali, South Asian and overseas scholars to address diverse areas of concern, in relation to the makeup of Nepali society, the structure of the polity, and the nature of political participation, so that a clear understanding shall emerge on the way ahead for the country. http://www.himalassociation.org/baha_conference.htm Social Science Baha PO Box 166, Lalitpur, Nepal Phone: +977-1-5542544/5547308 Fax: 5541196 Email: baha@himalassociation.org |
| MainBatti | Posted
on 18-Apr-03 10:31 AM
Thanks for the info, Ashu. Please post info/link to articles in newspapers about the conference if you have time. --------- On a side and unimportant note, I had not heard of this organization before. Was it recently established? MainBatti |
| sally | Posted
on 18-Apr-03 10:43 AM
Very interesting and important topic. And dare I suggest that if anyone comes up with a workable answer for how to make democracies truly inclusive in places such as Nepal (which basically means most of the non-Western world), they may get the Nobel Peace Prize? :-) Good luck. |