Within the next two weeks Nepalis will complete constitutionally-mandated elections and hope to move on from an elongated post-conflict transition to a period of stabilisation. The pride and satisfaction of recently successful local elections must accompany and secure provincial and federal elections on November 26 and December 7. All parties to the elections must remain committed to the completion of these electoral stages, which are essential to the realisation of a more stable, democratic Nepal.
At a glance, implementation of the 2015 constitution appears to be on track and all three governments envisaged ought to be in place on schedule, i.e. by January 2018. A closer look, however, is warranted at what appears to be unfolding. Depending on who has the vantage point, shared and self-rule through federalism is either a historic opportunity for Nepalis -- albeit with problems that need to be collaboratively resolved -- or a misinformed excursion by upstarts that needs to be curbed and whipped into shape before the country falls apart. We are witnessing the struggle between those who believe authority derives from another government and those who would rather use the covenant of a codified and written constitution.
Between May and September 2017, Nepalis elected over 35,000 representatives to run 753 local governments. A majority of those elected do not have previous experience in government. Much has been made of their lack of preparation, knowledge, and capacity. The commentary on local government incapability has been witheringly dismissive, contemptuous even. There is a collective failure to respect the people’s choice to vote in overwhelming numbers in the hope for change in the status quo of impunity in Nepali governance.
A significant number of newly-elected local representatives were previously contractors, real estate agents, and middlemen. Many have track records of voraciously serving their own private interests and their patrons in political parties. How they will govern in the public interest should be of greater concern than the relative incapability of the others who have been elected.
Whereas local government elections changed overnight the numerical representation of women in government, from previous handfuls to over 14,000 elected representatives now, the challenges of leadership are manifold: not only must these newly-elected women be accepted, they are also expected to perform at par or better, even though historically they were rarely given the opportunity to exercise formal leadership. Troublingly, with the exception of 93% of newly-elected deputy mayors, women and Dalits have been relegated to tertiary roles in local government.
It is apparent that the location of these new leaders in executive decision making within local government has been deliberately maneuvered so that their inputs count for less. Political parties have done the minimum necessary, and grudgingly, to meet constitutional requirements. Sadly, a casualty of these electoral maneuvers is the further marginalisation of Dalit men in local government. Despite such contrived handicaps, that judicial committees are now headed by mostly female deputy mayors should give us all hope that access to justice locally will improve. As women, and with previous experience in mediation, social mobilisation, healthcare, and community action, they come prepared more than their male peers to the representational task. The opportunity exists, therefore, to design carefully targeted initiatives to take advantage of electoral successes, even if they appear to be mixed with systemic constraints at the outset.