Oct 28, 2013-On November 19, the dilemma facing ten million Nepalis will not be who to vote for; it will be where to shit that morning. Choosing a venue (the river, bamboo grove or the footpath?) will be as tricky as what to wipe your bum with (leaves or stones?) for this mass that does not have access to a toilet.
-SUMAN KHADKA
Then, with germs lurking on their unwashed hands, they will come to vote in Nepal’s second revolutionary elections to elect Constituent Assembly (CA) members, some of whom will have done the same that morning. It will not just be votes exchanging hands this election, but also plenty of germs. Welcome to Nepal, which is so democratic that you can pretty much do whatever you want, including, but not limited to, defecating in the open!
Please don’t be offended if you are not one of these people; but as a society, we still have to bear this burden. Even a hundred years after germs were first linked to diseases and faeces identified as transmitters of germs, we belong to a society that either does not know these basic facts or ignores it at everyone else’s cost. Vote, however, these same people will. The clash between the first UN World Toilet Day and Nepal’s Election Day on November 19, hence, gives us an opportunity to analyse what kind of rights these two events symbolise and what they mean.
Political rights, such as voting and elections, are considered fundamental rights (also called negative rights). Countries that do not provide these rights (like China) are considered human rights abusers. This is incorrect because human rights are not simply about political rights. Human rights also encompass other things, such as access to a toilet, food and health services, which are social rights (also called positive rights). But the general thinking is that lack of toilets is a poverty, rather than a human rights, issue. Moreover, despite the high rhetoric of rights, globally, social rights are subordinate to civil and political rights, thereby receiving less priority.
Broadly, positive rights are considered progressive rights that can be realised depending on the ‘maximum available resources’, i.e., when a country becomes rich, while fundamental rights are supposed to be enforced immediately. Progressive rights are difficult to monitor and so vague that countries can get away with not doing much by arguing that they are not rich enough yet. Nepal’s 2007 Interim Constitution terms some positive rights as fundamental rights but this is limited to paper. The political struggle of the last 200 years is a clash between these two types of rights.
The West addressed this clash by delivering both positive and negative rights to its citizens. As Marshall explained, although rights evolved in the West starting from civil, political and social rights in the 18th, 19th and 20th century respectively, it was the development of social rights after World War II that gave full citizenship to people and cemented the resilient balance of capitalism with socialism. Globally, however, the bias towards negative over positive rights continues.
Such a bias benefits two groups. First, the West, which can act on the positive rights of the Third World as and when it suits its political agenda; it can argue that it is after all not its job to potty train us anyway! Second, it benefits our own political leaders who can defend their inaction in delivering social rights (toilets, in this case) by using the lack of resources
as an excuse, even when this may not be the case.
More importantly, we really need to ask why are rights such as access to a toilet dealt with progressively and the right to vote addressed with more urgency? Personally, I could not live without a toilet for even a day. It is not simply about luxury but about life and death. More than 10,000 Nepali children die each year as a result of water and sanitation-related diseases. On the other hand, I could live, quite happily, for a few years without voting. Of course, political rights ensure that we enjoy other rights but this does not appear to be the case in our context.
There is plenty of money for elections; we will have spent nearly Rs 20 billion holding two CA elections and more money will flow in if required. But if we wanted money (any amount) for each one of us to have a toilet, it will not come immediately. That is the difference between progressive and immediately enforceable rights. That is why 12.47 million people’s voting
rights on November 19 have dominated the local discourse in the last couple of years while almost an equal number of people are living without a toilet and yet, their agenda becomes a priority only during diarrhoea outbreaks in the monsoon or during toilet-related conferences. After an outcry over voter exclusion, an additional 170,000 people were registered by extending the deadline. Imagine if there had been the same clamour over the 10 million people who still don’t have sanitation rights.
Moreover, it is not simply about money, as there are other regulatory and punitive measures the state can take to enforce standards, if it wanted to. In this case, for each Nepali to own a toilet. And yes, it is not only about the state’s neglect. More people (65 percent of households) have mobiles than toilets (62 percent households). Imagine a line of people shitting in the open talking on their mobiles. That is definitely taking postmodernism a bit too far. We just don’t get the idea of basics. The last time I was in the glittery Civil Mall in Kathmandu, I noticed that it had all the modern gadgets of the world but no soap in its toilet.
I also do not want to ignore the significant progress made in improving sanitation levels; 62 percent in 2011 is much better than 30 percent in 2000. We also finally got our 10th open defecation free district! But there is no room for complacency because even in the 21st century’s New Nepal, those without a toilet still run into the millions.
So let’s not forget that a toilet is not a luxury that can achieved over a period of decades. It is a right we need immediately. If we cannot live without elections, we definitely should not have to live without a toilet.
Khadka is a PhD candidate at Monash University, Australia.
