 |
The war, fought largely in the countryside between Maoist insurgents and the then monarchic state, ended in 2006. The peace deal, together with a popular uprising against direct rule by the king, triggered a political sea-change in Nepal. The once-Hindu kingdom was declared a federal, democratic, secular republic and an ambitious reform agenda was set out.
Since then, political progress has come in fits and starts: a progressive interim constitution was signed, peaceful elections were held, and combatants were demobilised.
The biggest achievement is that Nepal has not slid back into war. This is no mean feat, and research shows that civil wars are highly likely to recur. But there is a need for caution against complacency.
Huge swaths of the population are still excluded from political decision-making, services and economic opportunity. The Nepalese population is divided into a caste system, according to Hindu beliefs and practices.
Certain castes are identified as higher, and caste discrimination has permeated social and cultural norms, even though the caste system was outlawed in 1962. High-caste older men still run the country, and thousands of younger men become migrant workers because economic opportunities are so limited at home.
Politics in this very patriarchal society is also still organised around patronage, and corruption is a serious issue.
These socio-political faultlines overlay the tectonic ones. Nepal had been anticipating a big earthquake for around 50 years. Preparedness was under way, but the scale of the task was overwhelming. Poverty and rapid urbanisation during and since the war have meant that houses are generally built rapidly and cheaply, with little heed paid to building codes.
Postwar political wrangling has caused disaster preparedness to suffer from partisanship and stalled decision-making. For example, a disaster management act has been in the works for nearly eight years.
The earthquake response has sharpened political divides and produced widely divergent narratives. Many people laud citizen mobilisation in the face of perceived state sclerosis. Individuals and groups galvanised their own networks to fundraise, organise and deliver practical help to people, especially in remote areas.
This whirlwind of activity pulled in activists, businesspeople, technology leaders and the diaspora. Rapid people-to-people support helped fill an initial gap left by delays to operations by the government and international aid agencies.
Many Nepalese have lambasted their government, citing lethargy, bureaucracy, poor coordination and politicisation. They point to relief being held up at customs; help going to friends and cronies of local government officials; and weak leadership.
Others defend the state. A wave of nationalism has swept up Nepalese fed up with perceived international condescension towards an elected government they believe is doing its best in the face of difficult challenges. They say health workers, police and soliders have tirelessly provided rescue and relief services, while local bureaucrats left with limited resources have struggled to respond to desperate people.
There are also those who criticise the international humanitarian response. Donors have delivered only a quarter of the funds they pledged. Aid agencies have been slow to mobilise and coordinate. Support has followed paths of least resistance, with remote and marginalised communities left out – again. Critics say international “experts” displace local capacity and inadvertently worsen community tensions.
Helping 8 million people scattered across mountainous terrain is incredibly difficult. But, even given the challenges, the response to Nepal’s earthquakes has not been optimal, partly because of a lack of trust based on social divisions rooted in ethnicity, caste, gender, and religion.
Recovery in Nepal will take a long time. But although the task is daunting, it offers opportunities. Aid agencies can engage civil society – youth groups, women’s groups, teachers, activists, lawyers, community leaders – in monitoring the local government’s distribution of relief and management of recovery programmes.
The government can engage people directly by running social audits and public hearings to explain how and why resources are being allocated. This could foster citizen checks on local leaders for greater accountability. It could also boost people’s faith in local government officials.
The challenges of meeting the need for legitimate local representatives to guide community reconstruction and rehabilitation processes may also bring pressure for local elections, which – due to war and political transition – have been pending for 18 years.
Recovery initiatives should also bridge social divides and build cohesion. Poor and excluded people should be empowered with new skills to lead reconstruction. The collective experience of trauma, civic ingenuity and Nepal’s wish to “build back better” could be harnessed to deliver economic, political and social renewal. This would require vision and integrity on the part of political leaders, international donor support to civic leaders and peacebuilders, and the concerted engagement of the private sector to invest in socially responsible businesses.
From the depths of despair could come new purpose. Actions over the coming months, by political leaders, international agencies and civil society, will determine whether the country’s social and political faultlines widen, or narrow.
- Elizabeth Drew is country representative for Nepal at peacebuilding charity International Alert, which will host a debate on Nepal in London on Thursday 11 June
