E-Kantipur

There has been a lot of debate on the consequences of affirmative action policies, globally as well as in Nepal.  Comparing the Parliamentary elections of the 1990s, held with the FPTP method, and the 2008 Constituent Assembly election, which required 335 seats out of 601 to be distributed proportionately among various groups, can help ascertain the role of the policy in Nepal.  Not only the domination of CHHE (caste hill Hindu elite) declined, but representation of Dalit, indigenous nationalities, Madhesi, and women increased significantly in 2008.  A large part of this change was due to the electoral affirmative action policy. To understand more about the exclusion and inclusion dynamics in Nepal, however, disaggregated data should be analysed as many individual ethnic, religious and caste groups within the broad aggregate categories fare differently.

Representation and under-representation of disaggregated groups

Disaggregating ethnic and caste groups for 98 groups, about whom Kare Vollan has provided data, reveals some interesting aspects.  First, affirmative action has helped many previously excluded groups to gain or increase representation.  Second, a few groups are taking a disproportionate share while some groups continue to be completely excluded.  Third, even among the dominant group, Chhetri and Sanyasi continued to be under-represented in 2008 as they were during the 1990s.

Except Damai, which elected one member in 1991, 14 Dalit sub castes were completely excluded during the 1990s while eight Dalit sub-castes got elected for the first time in 2008 (see table).  While four mountain-hill indigenous groups were over represented (average of three elections higher than population share), 28 groups were completely excluded or underrepresented in the 1990s.  Among the Tarai indigenous nationalities, all 12 groups were under-represented in the 1990s.   

Of the 28 hill-mountain indigenous groups under-represented during the 1990s, 18 groups increased their representation in 2008.  Eight Tarai indigenous groups increased their representation.  Among the Madhesi caste groups, 20 groups were completely excluded and eight under-represented during the 1990s. 13 of the previously under-represented Madhesi castes increased their representation in 2008.  Among the three Madhesi religious groups (Muslim, Sikh and Jain), all were still under-represented in 2008. All together, 48 previously under-represented hill, mountain, and Tarai indigenous groups, hill and Madhesi Dalits, Madhesi castes and religious groups increased representation in 2008, even though they were still under-represented.

Three over-represented hill and mountain indigenous groups still maintained their over-representation (Gurung, Limbu and Thakali) while Newar became under-represented in 2008.  Three Madhesi caste groups over-represented (Madhesi Brahmin, Kayastha, and Rajput) in the 1990s continued to maintain over representation in 2008.

The disaggregate data show that even among the dominant group, Chhetri and Sanyasin were under-represented during the 1990s and their representation further declined in 2008.  The Bahun and Thakuri got elected disproportionately from the first past the post (FPTP) and proportional representation (PR) method, which reserved 30.2 percent seats for the CHHE under the ‘Other’ category, at the cost of Chhetri and Sanyasi.

The discussion shows that affirmative action policy made a positive contribution in increasing representation of many groups. Of the 89 under-represented groups (68 completely excluded and 21 under represented) during the 1990s, 48 groups increased representation by 2008.  31 completely excluded groups had obtained representation in the Parliament for the first time in 2008.

Verifying the role of Affirmative Action Policy

An increase in representation could be due to other factors, such as groups’ increased capacity for mobilisation.  It needs to be ascertained whether any positive performance of marginalised groups in 2008 is due to the policy or other factors.  Prior to the 2008 election, various groups had mobilised.  The Maoists had also mobilised the Dalit, indigenous nationalities, and women during their armed rebellion. 

In this context, whether affirmative action policy or the enhanced capability of groups played a role in the increase in representation has to be tested.  The election data of 2008 can be used for the test because it was held with both the FPTP and PR methods, with the latter legally required to electing different groups proportionately. 

If a group’s representation increased through the FPTP method, one can assume that the increase was due to the enhanced ability of the group.  The ability of a candidate to get elected from a constituency can be considered as the increased ability of a group.  It indicates that the group had become capable and an affirmative action policy was not necessary to increase representation. 

On the other hand, if some groups were not be able to get elected through the FPTP method, but got representation through the PR, it demonstrates the role of the policy in getting the group representation.  Likewise, if various groups’ representation increased more by the List PR, the role of the affirmative action policy is confirmed in increasing representation of previously under-represented groups.

Comparison of 2008 election results shows that some groups did become mobilised.  Seven groups got representation through the FPTP for the first time in 2008.  But among the 32 groups that obtained representation for the first time, 21 groups were solely elected through the List PR method (four groups were nominated). Likewise, while the FPTP method contributed in increasing nine groups’ representation more than the PR, the PR method contributed 35 groups’ increase in representation than the FPTP had.  The analyses of aggregate and disaggregate data and examination of alternate hypotheses clearly demonstrates the contribution of the affirmative action policy in obtaining or increasing representation of previously under-represented groups in Nepal.   

The article is based on a paper presented at the international conference on ‘Protective Discrimination: Comparative Inquiries’ at University of Delhi

Post Your Comment

Please note that all the fields marked * are mandatory.
* Full Name
* Address
* Email Address
* Comment
* Captcha	Get another CAPTCHA code
Note:	Comments containing abusive words or slander shall not be published.