Let us suppose that all election related tasks have been completed, election date declared and all the disgruntled political forces have come onboard of the election process: Doubts remain; Mohan Baidya’s CPN-Maoist seems fairly committed to disrupting the election by every means possible. But let’s say even this force has been convinced, and Baidya’s concerns addressed. Yet this election is going to witness perhaps the most multiply fractured electorate in the country’s history. Its outcome may not lead to success in constitution drafting and ensuring lasting stability.
In all the major polls we have had so far, there were two clear cut choices for the people. In a way, 1959 election was something like vote for Nepali Congress, or don’t vote. One could choose between reformed Panchayat and multiparty rule in 1980’s national referendum. In 1991 polls, and in other parliamentary polls that followed, one could vote for NC or UML. The situation was somewhat similar in 2008—one could choose between the forces that fought a ten-year long war for republic and federalism, and forces that had exercised parliamentary politics all along. By all standards, 2013 is going to be completely different from all of these. [break]
NC and UML leaders claim the upcoming election is an opportunity to institutionalize democratic system by thwarting Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s ambition of establishing a ‘communist authoritarian federal republic.’ But things are not so simple. The country remains divided on several ideological, regional and political lines on issues of federalism. At least six different schools of thoughts on federalism are at play now. One, the country should go federal but current five development regions should be turned into five federal states. This is because, says this school of thought, five federal states are economically viable and geographically suitable—each of the five regions borders China in the north and India in the south. Such states can gather support from both northern and southern neighbors and can stave off the prospect of disintegration as well. The traditional right wing forces like RPP and RJP and some of the NC leaders have tacit support for this model. Two, let us create 7 to 13 or 8 to 12 provinces, with at least two to three in the Tarai, but let us choose names that reflect multiple identities. NC and UML are in this camp. Three, there should be 10 to 14 provinces, with two for Terai, but they should be named so that they reflect the single ethnic identity of the dominant groups living in the respective provinces.
Republica
Madhesi and Janajati parties and UCPN (Maoist) are staunch advocates of this model. Four, there should be no federalism for it leads to the disintegration of the country. Five, we don’t care how many provinces there will be, but we want Far-west, Midwest, Western region and Chitwan as an undivided entities. Six, there should be autonomous Limbuwan, Tharuhat and Newa states. On the eve of November polls, assuming that election is fixed for this month, these voices will be more dominant.
There will be more than one hundred parties forwarding these agendas. According to recent statistic, there are 119 parties—more than double the 54 we had in 2008—registered in Election Commission. Given this, the election outcome will be much more diverse than in the past, and will bring to the fore several discordant voices. With the threshold of proportional representation electoral system relaxed and high possibility of retaining 601 as the size of the new CA, its composition is going to be such that there will be no single party with a two third majority. The fractured mandate will breed confusion with multiple forces blowing their own trumpets but none of them coming around to consensus on vital issues. History will repeat, and the new CA will fail much like the old one. So what should be done?
Such a situation can be avoided if parties start proper homework right now. If they start forming alliances along two clear lines of for and against single-identity federalism, people will have clear options. If we are to make this election a referendum on federalism, the parties will have to formulate their election agenda on the same basis. Here is why.
For us to be able to have a new statute in place, there needs to be an overwhelming majority for one form of federalism: Few provinces reflecting multiple identities, or many provinces reflecting single ethnic identity. The risk is that the proponents of single identity may emerge dominant, and the country may go for a hard-to-sustain federal model. But if that’s what the people want, there is no reason why we should not adopt it. If NC and UML want to prevent this situation, they will have to forge an alliance with likeminded forces and strengthen their position. So far, UCPN (Maoist)—though its perennial flip-flops on federal issue must be taken with caution—and Madhesi and Janajati parties have stood in favor of single identity federal set-up. And NC, UML, and right wing parties like RPP and RJP are toeing the line of few provinces reflecting multiple identities. This polarization needs to widen and each of the alliance should come up with a clear cut agenda on federalism. The process seems to be gaining ground, slowly though.
NC president Sushil Koirala and UML chairman Jhalanath Khanal have been floating a proposal of election alliance between the two forces. The possibility is that RPP and RJP will join the bandwagon. Likewise, Maoist chairman Dahal Pushpa Kamal Dahal has called for an alliance with the Madhesi and Janajati parties. Such a polarization may not be good for healthy democratic practices, but it will give people a clear choice: Either you support us or support our rival camp. But does this alone guarantee a result-oriented election?
Given their proven track record of working against people’s mandate and given their reputation of crossing the floor when it comes to taking decision on crucial national issues, one cannot trust the political leaders this time either. In 50 years of electoral practice, political leaders have taken people’s votes, promising to bring them prosperity, but more often than not, they have worked against people’s interests. In other words, the covenant between the leaders and the people has been unilateral in nature. They are not obliged to address people’s concerns because there is nothing binding in this covenant. We need to make the covenant more binding.
Politics is an act of social contract, said 18th century political philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The crux of social contract theory is that individuals consent to surrender some of their freedoms to the decision of a majority, in exchange for protection of their remaining rights. It is with this hope that they voluntarily consent to give up certain freedoms to obtain the benefits of political order. It is time to broaden the area of such a contract. Let us make each candidate that seeks votes give us in black and white that he (it is he most of the times) will give us a constitution in return, and that he will work according to the agenda stated in the manifesto. Let us make him give us a copy of election manifesto with a promissory note at the end that says he agrees to work according to our mandate, and let us make him put his signature at the end. Politicians will have nothing to lose in this pact if they care for the people. And on the other hand, it will make people feel empowered. Might sound like a farfetched proposition, but I find the idea really fascinating.
mbpoudyal@yahoo.com
Related story
'Tale of a city' concludes
