In our country, where more than half of the total population is female, it is indeed disappointing to know that there is only 28.7 percent of women representation at the central level. Women from countries across the sub-continent face similar scenarios. However, we South Asians proudly assert that we have produced the most number of female head of states – appointed and elected both. I wonder how many of us question the possibility of these women emerging as leaders without the influence of their politically-dominant male kin.
Appointment of Sujata suddenly undermined potentiality, ability and credibility of women all over Nepal.
Having said that, however, most of these South Asian women leaders have come to power through formal democratic means and most of them have their own struggles and merits attached to their names in addition to their “political connections.” They have contested elections and have acquired people’s mandate before participating in any government. They had to have certain charisma, certain appeal in addition to having a patriarchal platform to step on to succeed. However, the same is not the case with Sujata Koirala. She neither has people’s mandate behind her, nor widespread popularity or charisma of any kind. Her only attribute as a frontrunner in Nepali Congress (NC) is her father, the old, predisposed president of the Nepali GOP.
For those of us who were associated with NC before the 1990 movement, we are well-versed with festering partiality and undemocratic tendencies that date back to its heydays. However, this time around, nepotism has reached its zenith where it has blatantly disregarded democratic norms and widespread dissent from within and outside of the party. Despite strong opposition from the senior party-men, Girija Prasad Koirala pressed for the post of foreign minister for his daughter who is widely regarded as unpopular, shifty, ambitious and overbearing. In addition, she is someone who, in spite of being doled out two constituencies during the CA election, failed to emerge victorious from either of them. Appointment of Sujata has the potential of eroding whatever little changes women’s movement had brought in the political playing field in Nepal. It will further entrench a trend where, without a patriarch or a male anchor, women are in danger of being sidelined; where a potential female political player has to have a patriarch or male anchors to aid her in her political ascends.
CPN-UML too has proved that it is not far behind in furthering this trend. Bidya Bhandari, despite losing the election bagged one of the most coveted ministries. Is it her clout or somebody else’s that made it possible for her to attain the post of defense minister? The irony of it all is that despite garnering most sought after positions, these women have delivered a big blow to women’s status in Nepali politics. The appointment of Sujata as foreign minister made it clear to those women who fought and won CA election that popular mandate means nothing. Standing shoulder to shoulder with their male counterparts and competing with them in national elections means nothing. Instead, presence of a politically-powerful and morally-weak male(s) is necessary to usurp power.
It will be ethically wrong to allow Sujata to stand in front of female voters and tell them that she represents them; that she will fight for them; that she will bring about a change. She will not because she is subservient to patriarchy as a system. She has used patriarchy to satisfy her hunger for power. She usurped power through brazen male-centric political tandav. Appointment of Sujata suddenly undermined potentiality, ability and credibility of women all over Nepal – it undermined merit and people’s sovereignty and encouraged feudal trends. Most unpardonable, however, is that the party that associates itself with democratic liberalism just demonstrated profound ‘illiberalism’ – both social and political.
Related story
Capacity for credibility
