So we have a 16-point deal as a promissory note on federalism. But realistically, we have not moved very far. The number of provinces has gone up to eight from five, boundaries are to be decided by Federal Commission. So it is increasingly likely that federalism will feature in the new constitution like this: Nepal shall be a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, multi-religious, multi-cultural sovereign, secular, inclusive, federal democratic republican state. There shall be eight provinces and their names shall be determined by two third majorities of each state assembly and boundaries determined by a Federal Commission.
Yes, the promise is vague. No one knows how long it will take to form a Federal Commission, how it will work and whether its recommendation will be accepted or fiercely contested. We had a State Restructuring Commission in the first CA to settle federalism dispute but the Commission itself was sharply divided. It submitted two separate reports in 2012—none of it agreeable to the parties. The rest is history. Federal Commission's report could meet the same fate. And if the local election is conducted as promised, and government taken to the grassroots, it could very well diffuse federalism project.
Thus what may look like a grand promise of federalism could finally end up being tokenism. Federal note in Monday's deal has generated three different responses. For a group of commentators this is the best compromise solution. We would not have had any better solution however hard we tried, they say. As for those who were convinced federalism would not make it in Nepal and that it won't solve country's problems, Monday's deal is no surprise. There is a third category that sees everything wrong in the deal. For them it marks a great betrayal to people and the end of federalism. Those who believed in it and had strong conviction must have been hurt. It must have angered those who took radical position on federalism. But in retrospection, our federalism project was bound to fail. Here is why.
First, political leaders, including media commentators, by design or default, created fault lines in federalism discourse. Maoists and Madheshis projected all who opposed their federal model as status quoist, privileged hill castes. This school demonized every Brahmin and Chhetri—including the poor and economically disadvantaged from this cohort. They made it appear like all Pahades are oppressors and all Madheshis and Janajatis the oppressed. The grey areas were never acknowledged. The fact that injustice has not spared poor hill Brahmin-Chhetris was pushed to footnote status.
Maoists made matters more complicated by adding ethnic colors to federalism discourse. They made it seem like federalism is all about ethnicity and that it could be realized by taking revenge against Brahmins and Chhetris—not excluding the poorest of the poor from these "privileged" class—for the historical injustice their ancestors had perpetrated. They fueled this sentiment in the Janajati communities. The society got polarized. Even rational decision of expanding service centers began to be met with strong resistance. Decision to expand government service centers in Simara and Chandra Nigahapur had to be withdrawn. This served as a warning call that anarchy is inevitable in the plains, if and when provinces are delineated, on whatever basis.
Fear and prospect of communal disharmony loomed into the horizon. Integrated and undivided Far-west and demand for Koch and Limbuwan states alarmed us. People's disillusionment with champions of federalism (Maoists and Madheshis)—many of whom had lost public appeal and were beginning to be reviled— helped to generate more fears than promises.
Most of all, very few leaders had faith in federalism. I made it a point to take personal views (off the record) of almost every leader I interviewed for Republica. "What do you think will happen about federalism?" Except for Rajendra Mahato, Upendra Yadav and Ashok Rai, all had serious misgivings. Maoist leaders would try to dodge this question as far as possible though by 2014 leaders like Narayan Kaji Shrestha had openly started to say 'federalism does not solve all problems.'
Leaders from Nepali Congress and CPN-UML were clear: Federalism will not work, they said, even if we try to institutionalize it now; it will lead to chaos and we will eventually have to return to a unitary state. Some would confide like this: Look, this is something we cannot say in public. But you are right, federalism will backfire. All that they said in public was meant not to offend their federal constituency. Commitment had to be displayed just in case few cadres with conviction in federalism will switch their allegiance.
Public opinion during the CA II polls had boosted their confidence. By November 2013, it had become clear that federalism is the last thing people wanted in the hills and plains: They wanted jobs, roads, and a guarantee that even a low income people can afford food, health and education. It is another thing that those who emerged victorious have cared less about these demands.
We had no option but be content with enshrining federalism in the new constitution and let it evolve or let it fizzle out. Surely, Congress and UML would not surrender to Maoists and Madheshis because together they have near two third majorities in the CA.
Things could have been different if we had acted wisely. If we had started with an honest acknowledgement of sufferings of each other and worked with genuine conviction to change, federalism debate would not have taken a nasty turn. If we had pretended not to realize that lack of functioning decentralization, and accountable and truly socialist government could help reduce economic inequality, if we had worked to economically empower the less advantaged, things would have been different.
Monday's deal has deferred the inevitable. It has not solved the problem. But whenever we tried to resolve federal contention, we would end up doing what we have done. The danger is there will be state absence, misrule, unemployment, impunity and selective exclusion of the poor and the deprived. The cost of living will skyrocket, commoners will be left to the mercy of profit sector. And parties dissatisfied with the current deal will call them aftereffects of lack of federalism. So much depends on how Congress and UML will rule this country.
Twitter: @mahabirpaudyal
Related story
Understanding Could Safeguard Kids On Social Media
-1200x560-1779899638.webp)
-1779842101.webp)
-1779943688.webp)
