Persistent bigotry against women and Madheshis has just resurfaced with the case of Dr Sangeeta Mishra controversy for the post of health secretary in the government of Nepal. Indeed, favoritism by the Minister for Health and Population Pradip Poudel for the promoted secretary—Dr Vikash Devkota—dates back to the removal of Dr Sangeeta from the position of Director-General of Department of Health Services last year. Though she topped the list of recommendation of three candidates selected on seniority and performance basis, Dr Sangeeta was denied the position she deserved due to the executive partiality. As a rare occurrence, her case has swamped social media, generally dominated by unprogessive views, calling for retribution against gender and ethnic Madheshi discrimination. This representative incident is synoptic of myopic nature of the state behaviour in dealing with its social diversity. In addition, few lawmakers have also raised their concern over the deplorable executive decision. Curiosities and surprises circulated in the media as to why and how it has happened. Amusingly, the Ministry has denied any role by passing the buck to the cabinet for the discriminatory decision. Is there no rule for such promotional appointments? What is the procedure? Who can appoint and on the basis of what? Why does such an incident of favoritism take place? These are the questions people are asking.
Rule by law or rule of law?
‘Rule by law’ prevails over ‘rule of law’, when rulers indulge in arbitrary decisions by underestimating fairness. In fact, rule by law signifies just the existence of law—in this case the existence of Nepal Health Service Act 1997 with section 19 dealing with appointment of secretary for health and population. As the most senior and experienced technocrat, Dr Sangeeta met all prescribed eligibility criteria of the Act. Which is why her name was on the top in the list of three candidates forwarded by the recommendation committee led by the Federal Public Service Commission Chairperson. But she slipped off the ministerial list of ‘acceptables’ making her appear like a disqualified candidate—a glaring case where law exists but doesn’t apply.
In contrast, in society with ‘rule of law’ government and institutions behave with accountability as laws are applied fairly and equally including for those in power. Accordingly, the government and the minister must operate within the bounds of law to guarantee equality and protection of rights of individuals regardless of their social status, background, ethnicity, gender etc. Unfortunately, an arbitrary ministerial decision dictated the appointment of the Health Secretary. This issue deserves a judicial trial and inquiry but prima-facie, it seems a matter of prevalent inequality and double standards.
Hidden inequality
The controversial case is also indicative of the positional power of women in Nepali society as per the powercube framework. In a seemingly inclusive and proportional provision for women’s representation in Nepali state apparatuses, they are not preferred for key and top positions relegating women to the second class social positions. As evident in the last election, the number of female representatives for local levels is satisfactory but their representation in the House of Representatives and the National Assembly are disproportionately lower. However, their meaningful representation in terms of decision making reflects structural problems of gendered power dynamics. Similarly, tokenism prevails in civil services as well. Gap of gender parity persists in terms of women at key executive positions within bureaucracy despite their surging proportion of 21 percent in Nepal’s civil services. Issues of intersectionality (Madhesi, Dalit, Janajati etc) within the increasing women proportion even within civil services is not without concern. Though male dominated Nepali political class leaves no chances in their pretentious tokenism for female appointments, Dr Sangeeta was not included in the list of few—President Bidya Devi Bhandari, Speaker Onsari Gharti Magar, Chief Secretary Lila Devi Gadtaula and Secretary for Foreign Affairs Sewa Lamsal.
The denial by the Health Minister that he has no role in the appointment of health secretary principally disqualifies him to remain in office. Either he should defend the cabinet decision or resign.
The discriminatory act on Dr Sangeeta not only exposes the state’s double standards about a Madheshi female appointment and their lackluster commitment towards United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) but also its hypocrisy related to collective responsibility of cabinet system. As a matter of convention in the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy, the minister has both individual answerability to the parliament as well as collective responsibility towards the decisions of the cabinet. The denial by the Minister of Health and Population that “he has no role in the appointment as the decision is taken by the cabinet, and he is just a member of the cabinet” principally disqualifies him to remain in office. As a member of the cabinet, either you are supposed to defend the cabinet decision or resign. Will the minister dare to take the responsibility or resign?
Binay Mishra (PhD) is a policy analyst and academician. He can be contacted at [email protected].
Comment