Former US President Jimmy Carter visited Nepal in the last week of March, and met with leaders of political parties, civil society, and other stakeholders.
Many foreign actors, including INGOs and Indian, Swiss, and Norwegian governments have taken a great deal of interest in Nepal’s peace process and the issue of inclusion. Carter Center, founded by Jimmy Carter, was one such western organization which observed and monitored the 2008 polls for Constituent Assembly in which the Maoists emerged as the largest political party, and helped provide legitimacy for the party in the international arena.
Carter’ article in The Kathmandu Post (January 8, 2013) entitled ‘Nepal’s Peace Process needs elections’, where he states that elections are needed for the completion of the peace process, is proof of his continuing interest in the issue. Carter shares many of the worries that foreign donor agencies interested in Nepal have realized after Nepal’s first ever elected CA failed to promulgate a constitution, even though it was ‘the most inclusive and representative governing legislature in Nepal’s history’. Actually Carter seems obsessed with ‘inclusiveness’, a term he used three times in his article. Inclusiveness is one of the major pre-requisites to the success of any democracy, and he is right in pointing out its importance. On the other hand, some questions about inclusiveness in Carter’s home state, Georgia, and his country, the US, remain unanswered.
Were Blacks, who made up a fifth of the American population, counted as ‘people’ when the American constitution was promulgated? King Prithvi Narayan Shah had declared Nepal to be ‘a garden of four varnas and 36 jaats’ years before the American constitution was promulgated. Many in the New Nepal now denigrate this great king who played a role similar to George Washington in the US or Otto von Bismarck in Germany. It was only after the emancipation proclamation in 1863 that the US constitution was amended to abolish the slavery of Blacks, and it was only in 1965 that they were allowed to vote.
Carter’s home state of Georgia was part of the former confederacy which fought against the United States. Blacks were denied the right to vote even a century after the civil war in Georgia, so it was not inclusive at all. Women had no right to vote till 1920’s in the US and Britain, and the American constitution had to be amended to give them the right. Even to this day, the US Congress is much less inclusive than Nepal’s parliament, with only 15 percent of members of House of Representatives and 20 percent of senators being women. In contrast, there are 33 percent women in Nepal’s parliament (the high percentage was achieved through proportional representation). In 2012, 89 members of the American Congress were either Black, Hispanic, or Asian. They amounted to only 15 percent of the Congress, compared to 30 percent of the American population being comprised of Blacks, Hispanics and Asians.
PHOTO: REPUBLICA
It took America more than two centuries after the promulgation of the constitution to elect a Black President. In spite of affirmative action in many sectors, it took the US a long time to be as inclusive as it is now. It took the civil war amendments and Voting Rights Act in 1865 to ensure equality for all citizens. The Tenth amendment to the American constitution, which gave different states the right to differ from federal laws and create their own laws, helped create an unequal and non-inclusive society in the US, especially in states like Georgia.
Carter was right in observing that the CA elected in 2008 was the most inclusive and representative legislature in Nepal’s history. Unfortunately, it failed to produce a constitution in two years, and its deadline had to be extended by two more years. The major reason behind this failure was the question of whether federal states should be based on single or multiple identities. There were 14 federal states proposed by one committee, which was never put to vote in the CA. Six of the 14 states proposed were named after one ethnicity each, none of which made up a majority in the proposed state. The Maoists proposed priority rights for each of these ethnic groups in the proposed states and declared their formation from the streets, not from the CA.
Carter Center should have raised its voice against the culture of impunity and lack of TRC and local elections.
The three mainstream parties, Nepali Congress, CPN-UML and the Maoists did not form the Truth and Reconciliation Commission as required by the Interim Constitution. They never bothered to hold local elections in the eight years after signing the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. Don’t Carter Center and other donor countries share some of the blame for creating such a state of affairs in Nepal? Carter Center has published a lengthy report on issues like identity based political activity and mobilization in Nepal on March 13, 2013. According to the report, “Carter Center does not have a view on the controversial terms used in this debate or raised in the report, nor does it take a position on which community fits into complex categories of identity and indigeneity.
Their applicability to Nepal is for Nepalis alone to decide.” It reiterates that “Carter Center is an international observation mission with a mandate from Nepal’s political parties to observe the peace process and constitution drafting process (of which identity issues are a direct part).” The Center should have raised its voice against the non-formation of Truth and Reconciliation Commission, lack of local elections and culture of impunity that prevailed in Nepal post-2008, which led to the dissolution of constituent assembly in May 2012. It had a special duty to do so, since it had recognized the legitimacy of Maoists and their election victory in 2008.
The author is a former official of the United Nations Secretariat and current secretary of Nepal chapter of International PEN
paraj85@hotmail.com
Related story
Budget for FY 2024/25: Strive for Fiscal Realism
-1776353206.webp)
