EditorialIn the coming days, political parties should make provisions in the law to have a separate 'cluster' for people with disabilities. The significance of inclusive democracy should be further strengthened.
We use Google Cloud Translation Services. Google requires we provide the following disclaimer relating to use of this service:
This service may contain translations powered by Google. Google disclaims all warranties related to the translations, expressed or implied, including any warranties of accuracy, reliability, and any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and noninfringement.
The main goal of the proportional representation system we have adopted is to ensure that the diversity of society is reflected in all organs and institutions of the state. The possibility of a diverse presence in the national Panchayats and multi-party parliaments was extremely low.
There were no binding provisions in the constitution and law, nor was there any liberality in practice. The practice of inclusiveness has begun to be adopted in the republican constitution and practice. As a result, the organs and bodies of the state are becoming inclusive. The parliament of Nepal is becoming inclusive in terms of gender, community, and geography. However, there are weaknesses in the law and practice. For example, there is no strong provision to ensure the representation of people with disabilities, who constitute 2.2 percent of the total population. As a result, the presence of people with disabilities in the federal parliament to the provincial assemblies is only occasional. This should be improved through law and practice. It is necessary to make the organs of the state more inclusive so that the 2.2 percent of the population with disabilities feel a sense of belonging.
According to the 2078 census, there are 647,744 people, or 2.2 percent of the total population, with disabilities. However, parties do not give priority to people with disabilities in elections. Their priorities and sense of responsibility can be assessed from the candidacies given by the parties for the upcoming House of Representatives elections on 21 Falgun. There are 3,406 candidates in the direct and 3,135 in the proportional system. However, only 86 people with disabilities have been nominated. Of these, one is a direct candidate and 85 are in various 'cluster' groups under the proportional system. Of these, 22 are women. The major parties in the dissolved House of Representatives do not give priority to people with disabilities. There is one candidate in the proportional closed list of the Congress. Two are in the closed list from the UML and one is a direct candidate. 3 each from the Nepal Communist Party and the National Independent Party are in the proportional list.
Since the main major parties do not give much priority to people with disabilities either directly or proportionally, the possibility of their representation in the House is naturally low. It may not happen. It also reduces the possibility of the voice of the concerned community being raised in the House. Whereas, the concept of inclusive democracy is that the community is the one who has the most right to raise the voice of its community. Only the voice that they raise themselves has more legitimacy and acceptability. Because they are the ones who are more aware of the suffering of the concerned community. They also have a credible voice for the change they want. Therefore, they need more representation to raise their community's voice. The concerned community is the one who is more aware of what kind of law is necessary to protect the rights of their community. For that, they can advocate in the House. Therefore, the maximum representation of people with disabilities means that the suffering of this community is raised in the House in their own words and style, and that they take the initiative to make laws as they want.
The current provisions available to bring people with disabilities to the House are not sufficient. There is a provision that one out of eight candidates elected from each province in the National Assembly must be a person with a disability or a minority (Article 86 (2) (a)). There is no mandatory provision that a person with a disability must win. There is no mandatory provision regarding the candidacy of a person with a disability directly in the elections to the House of Representatives. However, Article 84 (3) clearly stipulates that political parties must ensure representation of persons with disabilities when fielding candidates in the proportional representation system. Since there is no separate ‘cluster’ for persons with disabilities, parties tend to associate persons with disabilities with other ‘clusters’. As a result, the candidacy of persons with disabilities has become a mere ritual. If we look at the 2074 and 2079 elections held after the promulgation of the constitution and the subsequent representation of persons with disabilities in the House, such issues become clear.
On 10 December, the Supreme Court had issued an interim order to include the names of persons with disabilities in the proportional closed list for the House of Representatives elections. Even if the interim order includes names, it is not enough to ensure representation. If a mandate had been issued to separate ‘clusters’, the parties would have had to practice. In that case, significant representation could have been seen in the House. There is not much to expect now. However, it can be expected that parties, based on the votes received from the proportional system, will give priority to people with disabilities as much as possible when selecting MPs. On the other hand, in the coming days, parties should make provisions in the law to provide a separate 'cluster' for people with disabilities. The significance of inclusive democracy should be further strengthened.
