While Nepal constitution fails to represent regions fairly, it is first of its kind to protect LGBT rights in Asia.
Effective Sept. 20, the Nepalese President Ram Baran Yadav declared the acceptance of a secular constitution which was passed by the Constituent Assembly and authenticated by the chairman of the Constituent Assembly days prior.
Al Jazeera reports that there has been widespread support for the decentralization of power and democracy. The widespread support is mostly present in the LGBT community because the new law contains clauses protecting some rights of LGBT people. The cause of much distress for the citizens of Nepal, however, is the fact that the constitution will redivide the country into seven provinces.
The Constituent Assembly agreed that for the constitution to be adopted effectively and efficiently, there had to be provincial boundaries created first. The irony of this decision is that while trying to create order for democracy to begin, the assembly actually marginalized many groups of people living in the plains of Nepal.
Critics of the Nepalese assembly are upset by the lack of thought for the Madhesi and Tharu ethnic minorities who live closer to the Indian border. For a true democracy to be created, the constitution that will be put in place should have the input of all possible parties within the state. The New York Times reported that the representatives of the Madhesi people boycotted the vote to put the constitution in place.
Those who are raving in support are the members of the LGBT community that now have anti-discrimination, anti-violence and anti-abuse clauses within their constitution.
While the fact that any form of democracy has been accepted by the previously Maoist-dominated country, the major flaw is that not all were represented fairly. If an assembly overlooks minorities in this one instance, there may be more acceptance for this to pervade the decisions in the future of law making.
According to the political theory of John Rawls, if the policies of a nation-state are not mutually agreed upon by the majority, then the state’s actions are not justified. Providing mutual consent of the constitution for all of the Nepalese people would prove impossible, especially with the aftermath of the earthquake. Nevertheless, at least representing all of the ethnicities and political parties fairly would be justifiable enough.
Even with the goal of implementing a democratic constitution as soon as possible, the fact that more than 40 public protesters were killed in the previous weeks leading to the adoption of the charter is unsettling. Disguising the implementation of power in the form of a charter as a time-sensitive charter to put in place democracy is wrong and was an overstep taken by the governing powers in Nepal.
Though Ohio University students cannot do anything to directly the change policies in Nepal, they do have the tool of social media to spread the support for pure democracy. And with the inclusion of LGBT rights in a constitution, the first of its kind in Asia, students can hold their heads high in hopes that this policy will lead to more equality in countries like Nepal.
A country ravaged by military control and earthquake turmoil needs more than partial equality in representation within their own state, but trashing the entire constitution would be dangerous from a human rights standpoint.
Brian Fogel is a freshman studying journalism and a photographer for The Post. What do you think about the new constitution in Nepal? Tweet him @FrianBogel or email him at bf111514@ohio.edu.
