Soon after the formation of the current government, a young man asked me a question in a cheerful tone – ‘There has been a generational shift in politics, issues of inclusion have also been addressed, what will be your agenda now?’ I also answered in a cheerful tone, ‘The country is now in your hands, how will you give continuity and stability to the issues established in the past, we will monitor it.’ 

The young man’s question was simple and contemporary when heard at a glance. The simpler the question, the more complex and profound its meaning. The question was symbolic and echoed common perceptions. That one question and many other statements with similar intent gave birth to this article. This article attempts to examine the concept, relationship and relevance between the current political environment and the essence of inclusion.

The Constitution of Nepal has protected the constitutional rights of everyone, including all castes, genders and religions in the country. Proportional representation and participation of all, including 33 percent political representation of women, is considered a historic achievement of inclusive democracy. The presence of women and other marginalized communities has increased from the parliament, the council of ministers to the local level. For the first time in history, 33 percent women have been ensured in the council of ministers of the newly elected government led by youth. The government has announced that it will apologize for past discriminatory practices towards the Dalit community. All these developments and progress are certainly very encouraging and hopeful. However, keeping these developments at the center, the general perception seems to be leading to an easy conclusion - along with the historical changes in the country's politics, the issues of inclusion have also been addressed, and further debate on this is no longer relevant.

But will this alone end historical injustice, inequality and structural discrimination? Does numerical representation automatically ensure power, influence and justice? These questions are not just theoretical questions in today's context, but are debates related to the essence, quality and good governance of democracy, the relevance of which has deepened even more in the present.

Numerical representation: presence or manipulation of power relations? 

Certainly, whether it is the 33 percent representation of women in leadership or the presence of marginalized groups, both are very important achievements. All these are the results of long political struggles, women's movements, and continuous pressure and advocacy for inclusive policies and practices. This has ensured a certain degree of formal presence of excluded classes and genders in state structures, which is positive. It has also increased their influence in public life. But if representation is limited to numbers and evaluated on that basis, it creates a serious illusion. Being present in parliament, ministries, or executive bodies and having an influence on the actual decision-making process are two different things. Being present, but if they are far from the decisive power structure or cannot influence and bring change to it, then this achievement remains incomplete. Studies also show that despite the increase in numerical representation, the access of women and marginalized communities to leadership and decision-making processes is still limited. 

The real meaning of political representation is not just reaching a position, but being able to influence policy making, resource distribution, and priority setting. If we take women's representation as an example, it is not that women's representation in parliament has not reached 33 percent in the past. Some women or Dalits are not included in the cabinet. If we look only at individual participation, women or Dalits did not reach influential positions even before democracy came to the country. But how much role did it play in structural change? What changes did it bring about in the lives and power relations of the general community? This is the main question. Although women are generally active on issues related to women, children, education or health, their activity and access to budget priorities, resource distribution, large infrastructure issues, foreign policy, and balance of power seem limited. The experiences and views of women or marginalized groups are not prioritized on such issues. They are guided by party-based decisions, which include certain people (men with access). This shows that women are limited to women's issues only, while decisions related to the main power and resources of the state are determined by the male-dominated structure.

Another example is the participation of women in local level deputy mayors. Although this system seems to have made encouraging numerical progress, it has raised the question of how much space has been given to women's decisive ability and exercise of power qualitatively. To examine the difference between representation and influence, it is necessary to bring into a broad debate the achievements of women who have reached the position of deputy chief and the obstacles, discomfort, humiliation, violence and frustration arising from politics that they have faced at the decision-making level. Have they had the opportunity to play an independent and decisive role with representation? This must be analyzed and debated. Otherwise, the serious issues of equal distribution and exercise of power will be lost within the symbolic progress brought by representation.

Apology to the Dalit community: Acknowledgement of discrimination or assurance of justice?

The chairman of the party leading the new government has apologized to the Dalit community for the discrimination and exclusion that has been practiced to date. This is a very positive and popular step. Accepting that a matter that was prohibited by law decades ago is still practiced in society today is the first step against discrimination. But what change does this statement bring to the daily lives of the common Dalit community? What are the government's policies, behaviors and practices along with this statement to compensate for the discrimination, exclusion, humiliation and mental trauma that they have suffered and are suffering for centuries? The question remains. Only the actions or plans taken to correct the unequal distribution of power and unjust practices in society can answer this. Apologies by the state or some inclusive symbolic steps are positive signs, but trying to present such steps as a final solution is dangerous. Apologies acknowledge the past, but do not ensure justice. Structural reforms are necessary for justice. In the coming days, such steps will only be symbolic if there is no policy change, institutional accountability, and redistribution of resources targeting the Dalit community. Social justice is not just acceptance, it is change, which must be systemic. The behavior and policies that the government will target Dalits and other excluded communities in the coming days are the basis for measuring progress in this regard.

Invisible social structures and informal rules

Society is guided more by informal and unwritten rules than by formal and written rules. As much as formal and written policies have forced the presence and representation of women and the marginalized forward, entrenched patriarchal thinking, practices, and informal rules have also made their presence ineffective. For example, let's take a photo posted on social media by an influential leader of the current ruling party after the election and before the formation of the government. It was a personal photo posted on a personal page, in which four male leaders of the ruling party were sitting, and the caption of the photo was titled 'Discussion of government affairs'. The seemingly ordinary post was not only meaningful, but also gave a clear indication of who controls the keys to power and authority. If we look at representation and influence comparatively, there is not much difference between the appearance of this photo and the appearance of the so-called old political parties, except for the face and age.

Informal structures and rules play not only a profound but also a decisive role in Nepali politics. In some cases, even though elected representatives are in the forefront, decisions are controlled by a limited number of individuals or groups. In particular, the power structure within political parties is highly centralized and male-dominated. When the presence of women or marginalized groups in such decision-making levels is limited (or zero), their implementation role is also limited. Without access to places where policy priorities are determined, the impact of representation is automatically weakened. In such times, social, economic and other power relations are more influential than the formality of office. In our context, informal rules and practices, rather than formal policies, conduct most of the ‘politics’. The gap between the leadership that appears from the front and the decision-making power from behind is most visible in politics. Unless these and other informal power relations and structures are challenged and decisions are made while maintaining the same structure, there is a risk that change will remain for a limited number of people and only on paper.

Finally, the context of inclusivity

The changing political landscape of Nepal today shows a scene of generational change in politics, but the picture of social and political transformation is blurry. There is no clear picture of how to address the deep inequalities of class, caste, gender and access to justice at all levels of society. The dominance of the upper and more accessible classes and groups has replaced real inclusivity, which has still excluded the most marginalized communities from the decision-making process. If the currently elected government is truly inclusive and committed to democracy, it must move beyond symbolic representation and decisions and move towards structural change. For this, the current government needs to take some clear steps. Such as: legally institutionalizing internal democracy and inclusiveness of political parties, reforming the electoral system and laws, integrating class, caste, geography, and gender diversity in every policy-making space on an interconnected basis, and prioritizing the most marginalized communities in public budgets and policies.