Why do we need more women in politics? The immediate response is usually for women to speak on women’s issues because the understanding is that in a patriarchal society men will not take up issues important to women such as child care policies or labor laws sensitive to women’s needs. This is true to a large extent, but addressing women’s issues is not the only reason for having more women in Parliament. As Stella Tamang, women’s rights activist, put it, “We should have more women in Parliament not only because there is a need but also because women can lead.”
Women are thinking individuals with their own perspective on national issues and global affairs. They also have different styles of leadership. With their own perspectives and leadership styles women may have different approaches to some of the nation’s pressing problems. Ignoring this population of potential leaders is a loss to the entire society and not only to women. Moreover, democracy is about having greater participation, especially of the marginalized, in the decision-making processes of the state. To have more women in politics is to have a democracy that is reflective of the composition of our society and is just and equal.[break]
Dipesh Shrestha /The Week File Photo
Women in the Assembly
The constitutional maneuvering that brought Chief Justice Khil Raj Regmi to power on March 14, 2013 also changed the size of the Constituent Assembly (CA) and the electoral system. The number of members in the CA was reduced from 601 to 491. The mixed electoral system of 58% Proportional Representation (PR) and 42% First Past the Post (FPTP) was changed to a 50-50 ratio. The decrease of 95 PR seats means a loss of about 47 seats in the Assembly for women. This blow to women’s representation, done at the insistence of Nepali Congress and CPN-UML that the size of the previous CA was too large and the way to reduce it is to take away the seats of the marginalized, does not bode well for the representation of women in the next CA. The Maoists and the Madhesi Morcha, too, share the blame for going along with the NC-UML demands for political expediency.
Given the historical trends and patriarchal nature of society, particularly strong with Brahministic traditions of all ethnic groups, women have always found it difficult to compete with men and win through direct, FPTP, election. The parties field few women candidates, and when they do they are often given “tickets” to constituencies they are less likely to win from. Taking away representation through PR is bound to hurt the women the most.
Whether the voice of women in the last CA was strong enough or heard is debatable. But it does not justify reducing women’s representation in the second CA because they still constitute more than half of Nepal’s population and are politically marginalized. With PR seats slashed, inclusion issues sidelined, and women leaders excluded in the High-Level Political Committee, it’s certain that the proportion of women in the second CA will decline.
Historically, women’s representation in Nepal’s parliament has been minimal. The first parliamentary election in 1959 saw six women candidates, but they all lost. The 1990 Constitution required five percent women’s candidacy in parliamentary election and resulted in an increase in women candidates in 1991, 1994 and 1999 elections. However, very few were elected. Out of the 205 seats, only 6 (3%), 7 (3.4%) and 12 (5.8%) women were elected from political parties in 1991, 1994 and 1999 respectively. Just like the Dalits, women’s representation in Nepali parliament before the CA has been negligible.
The Maoist struggle, the 2006 People’s Movement and the activism from the marginalized groups enabled women leaders associated with political parties or NGOs to speed up the climb to higher political representation. Heightened political consciousness among women activists and leaders and their significant contribution to the political movements was recognized. As inclusive democracy gained utmost priority, and women demanded 50% proportional representation in the CA elections based on the 2001 Census. However, political parties did not address it immediately. When they formed an all-male Interim Constitution Drafting Committee, women feared that their demand for proportional representation would not be addressed. Only after intense lobbying and demonstration, women succeeded to have women committee members and protect women’s political representation in politics.
Although women demanded 50% representation in the CA, political decisions dominated by male politicians settled on 33% representation. Compared to women’s representation in the pre-inclusion era, this was a big leap forward. Women took satisfaction in the 33% representation and accepted it as a good beginning. Beyond Nepal, other countries in South Asia and the world applauded the move towards increased women’s participation in politics. Out of 189 countries, Nepal was ranked at number 24 for the percentage of women in the Parliament.
Today, this achievement is at stake. A look at the possibilities for women’s representation in the upcoming election based on simple calculations will be helpful to understand the fears. In 2008, women constituted 48% of the 335 CA members elected through the PR system, although this should have been 50%. Only 13% out of 240 FPTP members were women. And, out of 26 nominated members only 6 (23%) were women. Cumulatively, this fulfilled the mandate of 33% women’s representation. If the same ratios are maintained for the new electoral system, women’s cumulative representation will fall to 30%. In an optimistic scenario, where 50% women are elected from PR, 33% from both FPTP and nominations, there could be a 41% representation of women. In a semi-pessimistic scenario that only accounts for 50% representation through the PR system, and none through FPTP and nominations, women’s representation cumulatively looks bleak at 24%. Given that at least a small percentage of women succeed in the FPTP elections, the final percentage is likely to be anywhere between 24 to 30 percent.
NeelkanthaUpreti, Chief Election Commissioner, corroborated the possibility of reduced representation at a gathering of more than 1,000 women in the Collective Campaign on Proportionate and Inclusive Participation of Women in Upcoming Elections organized by forty-seven different women’s organizations. He warned that if 50% women’s candidacy was not guaranteed then, cumulatively, women’s representation in the second CA could decrease to 22%.
Although the above estimates are based on simple assumptions, they give a sense of possible outcome and highlight the difficulty in ensuring a minimum of 33% representation in the second CA elections.
In response, women activists and leaders from diverse backgrounds have organized campaigns to guarantee a minimum of 33% representation in the elected Assembly and not only in candidacy. This is the non-negotiable demand. The collective campaign of 47 women’s organizations drafted a 12-point demand that was presented to the Prime Minister and leaders of the four major political parties in May 2013. Recently, a Joint Struggle Committee of women released a 6-point demand.
The first demand of the women’s movement, as explained by Stella Tamang, also a member of the Joint Struggle Committee, is to increase the PR ratio to 60%. Given the slim chances of attaining representation in the CA through FPTP, women have pinned their hopes on the PR system. The increase in the PR share along with a guarantee that 50% women candidates are fielded is one of the safest ways not to compromise on the 33% demand.
The demand to change the ratio of the mixed system comes at a time when voter registrations have closed and it may appear unfeasible and late. But women’s rights activists are determined and hopeful. They say the time is now. In their favor, other marginalized groups – Dalits, Janajatis, Madhesis, Muslism, among others – are dissatisfied with the reduction in the PR ratio. As pressure to reopen voter registration mounts, especially from the Madhesi communities, women’s rights activists see an opportunity to renegotiate.
The second demand is to reserve constituencies for only women candidates. This will protect women’s representation through direct election, but it encroaches on the democratic electoral process as voters are forced to choose only between women candidates. But, despite such limitations, this could be one of the best options to ensure that significant number of women is elected through FPTP.
Beyond the two major demands, women’s rights activists want to change the legal details in the electoral laws that give leeway to political parties in favor of men. For example, the plus or minus 10% leeway that political parties have on inclusion requirements when sending candidates through the PR system are used by all parties to send more men to the CA, as seen after the 2008 elections. Another detail is one that allows political parties that win only one seat or an odd number of seats to elect, disregarding the inclusion requirement, whom they want as the final, marginal member.
Not surprisingly, political parties prioritize men over women candidates. According to Sapana Pradhan Malla, these legal details allowed men to garner 52% of the PR seats while women received 48%. Therefore, this time, women activists have also demanded that political parties first elect women in the closed list of PR candidates.
While the devil is in the details, and the fights over these provisions would increase women’s representation marginally, some activists worry that it can distract from the larger goal of increasing the ratio of PR or the possibility of reserving constituencies.
Besides increasing the share of proportional representation, women’s rights activists and leaders have made additional demands to align incentives and create an enabling political environment to protect 33% women’s representation in the Assembly. These demands are: disqualify political parties that do not provide 50% candidacy to women in PR and 33% in FPTP; require political parties to state in their manifestos that it will secure 50% representation of women at the local level and 33% at the central level; and include women in the High-Level Political Committee, and in all agencies and commissions of the government, as mandated by the Interim Constitution.
A minimum of 33% representation is only a beginning and not the end goal. The ultimate goal for gender equality in the political sphere is to have at least 50% women in the Parliament. Political will is the driving force to achieve this goal because it can bring about the required changes starting from proportional representation within the parties. But it is the law that can protect the gains political changes bring. The current electoral ordinance does not guarantee 33% minimum representation in election outcomes. It therefore should be reviewed to address women’s demands.
Related story
Delayed treatment of SHAPU infection increases risk of vision l...
