PANACEA OR A LORELI SONG?
The federal proposition has invited mixed reaction – positive, negative and one of indifference and ambivalence. A section of the intelligentsia and political class have tried to project it as a panacea of ills that afflict the Nepali society, particularly underdevelopment and regional disparities, over-centralization of political power, exclusion and discrimination. Others have accepted it as a fait accompli. Some scholars and intellectuals have started showing skepticism. Still others see it as a possible loreli song and the road to disintegration.
Spain and China, although unitary states, have granted enough power to some of their provinces with or without formal legislation.
One worst fear was alluded by Shyam KC, a well-known English language journalist. He cautioned us about the risk of the country turning into another Yugoslavia. In a short history of 100 years, a country from its brief status as a Kingdom of Yugoslavia turned into Democratic Federal, to Federal People’s Republic and further turned into Socialist Federal Republic and then again to Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. By the turn of the century, there is no trace of Yugoslavia. In its place, a number of nation states have emerged along ethnic lines, following a series of bloody ethnic wars.
Nepal has transformed itself from a Kingdom to Democratic Republic and now to Federal Democratic Republic. A strong political section represented by the Maoists plans to convert the country to a People’s Republic. All this is happening within a very short span of history. The challenge before us is how to guard the country against the risks of falling into a divisive and destructive course or another form of autocracy to ensure a smooth transition towards a peaceful, democratic, strong, united and prosperous Nepal with a workable federal structure.
HISTORY
It was the foresight, courage and vision of the legendary king, Prithvi Narayan Shah, which laid the foundation of Nepal as its stands today by unifying small, hilly kingdoms and principalities mainly the Chaubises and Baises in the west under Sen and other Thakuri rulers, and the kingdoms of Makwanpur, Vijayapur and Chaudandi under Sen rulers with their Kirati vassals in the east, and kingdoms in the Kathmandu valley under the Malla rulers. The nation’s boundary underwent massive expansion further under Bahadur Shah; this turned the small, hilly kingdom into one of the formidable powers in the subcontinent whose border extended from Tista in the east to Satlaj in the west. A number of miscalculations and military adventures led the nation into war with the formidable British war machine, which eventually ended with the Treaty of Sugauli in 1816, reducing the kingdom’s size by almost one third.
The country recovered part of the lost territory, when the grateful British India offered four Tarai districts in the west from Banke to Kanchanpur in return for this country’s contribution in quelling the Sepoy Mutiny in 1857 when the strong man Jang Bahadur Rana himself led the military adventure with 9000 troops.
The country still takes pride of its glorious past when the forefathers displayed exemplary military prowess, valor and determination in making this nation state. Several small kingdoms and principalities of the diverse languages, cultures, and ethnicities were brought under one umbrella – Nepal. Not just military prowess, a lot of tact, diplomatic skills and ruthlessness was used in the process. The methods used may be questionable by modern standards and values but they were in keeping with the accepted contemporary practices of the time. Practically, every nation throughout the world has passed through similar stages.
NATION-BUILDING
The country’s real nation building effort in emotional term was yet to begin. The end of Rana Shogunate and the dawn of liberal values was the starting point in that direction. The legendary leader of modern time B P Koirala observed that the state of Nepal was more of a geographical and administrative entity than a nation until then. The real task of nation-building was not possible in the absence of democratic institutions and popular participation in national affairs. He believed that only with political freedom, the diverse ethnicities, cultures and languages would have an opportunity to grow and prosper in an atmosphere of equality. But the royal takeover of 1960 halted the country’s democratization process. The Popular Movement of 1990 restored the political and social rights of the people and ushered an era of democratic practices, liberal values, periodic election and accountable government.
However, experience over time showed that mere political liberty and liberal values are not sufficient to bring the excluded and discriminated communities to the national mainstream. They did not have the same level-playing field where they could compete with more powerful and well-entrenched communities. Nepali democracy was not inclusive enough to properly reflect the diversity of the Nepali society in the national power structure. The Maoist war brought this problem to a sharp focus. The Maoists successfully used this fault line to expand their support base.
The second People’s Movement was fought not just against the royal autocracy. An inclusive democracy through “state restructuring” and “forward-moving reforms” were other key issues. The Interim Constitution not only institutionalized the abolition of monarchy but brought sweeping changes in giving political representation to diverse communities, which were traditionally underrepresented and marginalized. From the gender, ethnic and regional perspective, the Constituent Assembly (CA) represents a path-breaking composition.
Being on a fast forward mode, the constitution declared that Nepal would be called a Federal Democratic Republic even before taking decisions on provinces and other federal issues. The constitution has proposed the State Restructuring Commission to recommend the number, boundaries, names and structures of the autonomous provinces together with the distribution of power and resources. The Commission is yet to be constituted. Meanwhile, the issue is being debated inside and outside the corridors of the meeting rooms and hall of the CA.
FEDERAL NATIONS
There are about 25 federal countries in the world – about 12 percent of the total number of countries – accounting for 40 percent of the global population. They include some of the largest and complex democracies like India, USA, Germany, Mexico and Brazil. Eight of the 10 territorially largest countries have adopted the federal system. Federalism does not have a single model. Historical evolution of federal states differs from country to country. The degree of autonomy enjoyed by provinces also differs.
Generally speaking, there are two models of federalism. In the first and generally prevailing model, a federation emerges when more than one sovereign state with independent status decide to form a federation based on an agreement. This is also called federation by “aggregation”. The objective is to address issues of common concern or to provide mutual defense. Most of the successful federal nations, including USA, have been founded under this mode. These countries were basically “born federals.” Most countries in the world fall under this category. Federations were created in a natural way. The other model is a unitary state converting itself into a federation by dividing the country into various provinces. Such countries are not born as federals but “converted into federal” for various reasons. The provincial identities are often based on such issues as ethnicity, language, geography and so on. This is also called federation by “disaggrregation”.
In a federation, sovereignty is notionally divided among federating units. The federating units are regarded sovereign in so far as the power reserved to them cannot be exercised by the central government. The successful federal countries are those which were “born federals” through aggregation. There are very few nations, which are “converted federals” through disaggregation. In the developed world, the federation of Belgium came through disaggregation. Among the developing ones, Ethiopia adopted federal system through this method.
The historical developments of even “born federals” have shown a gradual movement of power from the component states to the center, as the central government acquires more power to deal with unforeseen circumstances through constitutional amendments or broader interpretation of existing constitutional provisions.
UNITARY NATIONS
In a unitary state, there is a single, centralized, national tier of government. The philosophy of a unitary state is that the entire territory represents one single sovereign authority – one nation state. By virtue of that authority, the national government exercises sovereignty over the entire territory.
Even in unitary nations with an all-powerful center, there can be autonomous regions and local self government through a process of devolution of authority from the center. This is how vast, populous and diversified countries like China, Japan, Spain, the Philippines and the UK have used the unitary system successfully. The vast majority of the nation states have followed this model.
The degree of autonomy enjoyed by provinces is not the distinguishing criteria of a federal nation. The self-governing states of some unitary states have enjoyed more autonomy and power than in federal countries. Spain and China, although unitary states, have granted enough power to some of their provinces with or without formal legislation. Spain, technically a unitary nation, is a de facto federation, as it has granted more autonomy to regions like Galicia, Catalonia or the Basque county than most federal countries would allow their provinces. Revoking the autonomy thus granted is a near impossibility, although theoretically possible. Similarly, China has granted strong autonomy to special administrative regions in a federal-like manner. It is for this reason that the distinction between a federation and the unitary state is sometimes blurred.
BEHIND FEDERALISM
There are three considerations behind the demand for federalism in Nepal – identity, empowerment and delivery.
Democracy means empowerment of individuals ultimately. Federation ensures empowerment of people in closer proximity of the state power of federating units as different from the centralized unitary authority. The government closer to home is perceived to be better receptive to people and hence accountable. With greater popular participation in governance, people could have more say and control in governance.
As government closer to the people understands the local problems better and quicker, decision-making will be swift, hence the perception of a better economic prospect in a federal set-up. There will be greater effectiveness in responding to popular will. Rapid development is expected in areas neglected and ignored in the past by the central authority located far away. It is expected that economic and social exploitation and discrimination will be reduced.
Even more important than the consideration of empowerment, delivery and development is the emotional issue of identity. Samuel Huntington foresees civilizational clashes and ethnic conflicts as the new realities of the emerging world, which represents a challenge to the universality of Western values. Cultural diversity is not just a historical curiosity, as Western values believed traditionally. Huntington saw the collapse of ideology because of religious revival.
Nepal is a country of ethnic, cultural and geographic diversity. The diverse communities see ethnic states as an expression of respective identities. Assertion of ethno-linguistic, cultural and regional identities together with the need for political power and economic opportunities has propelled people to demand ethnic states.
Ethnic politics shows an unmistakable ascendancy. The country is witnessing a deconstructionist trend not seen before. People are trying to organize on platforms of nationalities, sub-nationalities, ethnicities, castes and regions. The ethnic aspirations which remained dormant and suppressed for long has found expressions in various ways – peaceful and at times violent.
The Madhesis are making an emotional issue of identity as they see the identity of Nepali state as basically the Pahadia-dominated, which has largely ignored the Madhesis who account for more than one third of the country’s population. Within the Madhes, Tharus represent the largest ethnic group with the claim of being truly indigenous. The Tharuhat movement has demanded a separate state for themselves stretching from east to west. It is common to hear ultimatums issued by assorted armed groups in Tarai under various banners to civilians of hill origin to vacate the land or face consequences. There are other groups along linguistic and ethnic lines – Maithili, Bhojpuri, Awadhi, Kochila, etc.
In the hills, ethnic groups such as the Limbus, Khambus, Tamsalings, Tamus, Kirants, Magars, etc. who also feel discriminated and accorded lower status by the orthodox Hindus are also using various pressure tactics to demand autonomous provinces to be identified with their particular ethnicities. There is also a new demand for carving mountain province in the north stretching from Darchula through Taplejung. There is also a demand for Newa state by Newars of the Kathmandu valley.
It is now too late to question whether or not the issues of identity, empowerment, development and delivery could have been addressed in a unitary structure with appropriate institutions and effective devolution of authority. It is well-known that a country as big and populous as China has delivered governance and economic progress in a unitary set-up. Similarly, a country as democratic and developed as Great Britain with different ethnicities has a successful unitary structure.
(To be concluded)
Related story
Book review: Analyzing political economy of federalism in Nepal
-1782782519.webp)
