The 600+ members of CA would be given just one choice. This type of railroading has cost us dearly in the past, and I think the time has come to let the people decide what kind of federal model they want on the basis of a referendum rather than backroom political negotiations.
Thus, I urge the Committee to reconsider their decision and widen the debate. For the last 10 years or so, I have been writing about the need for a decentralized federal structure for the country, and given the geopolitical and ecological realities of the country, I had proposed a structure that takes into account both ethnic sentiment and ecological and geographical interdependence – cooperative federal structure. A crucial debate like this needs feedback from all segments of the society. After all, this is about the long-term future of the country.
I do not claim that what I have been presenting is the best way to approach this issue, but I would surely do not want the Restructuring Committee to simply adopt a model solely based on ethnocentric political considerations and street pressures. Even the choice provided by the Nepali Congress, a six-province model, is nothing but a false choice. Neither model takes into account many other elements that are necessary while deciding the federal structure. Many experts had labored for months to articulate this, and for the Restructuring Committee to ignore this completely is just a slap in the face.
Maybe, it’s time to give the people a set of real and diverse choices and let them choose a model through a referendum. The backdoor compromises and negotiations have done much damage to the country. It’s time to think differently. What follows below is a plausible model. This cooperative model has two elements – territorial and non-territorial – and takes into account various elements: Ethnicity, resources, ecological dependence, river basin, and pro-cultural harmony structure.
Maybe, it’s time to give the people a set of real and diverse choices and let them choose a model through a referendum. The backdoor compromises and negotiations have done much damage to the country. It’s time to think differently.
I urge the CA members not to be shortsighted and urge them to take this issue to the people. This issue is not about Pahadi versus Madhesis. This is about Nepal, and we are all in it together. If we miss the boat at this juncture, we will regret it forever.
Territorial
On the territorial side, the proposed model divides the nation into four states based on the four river basins – Karnali, Gandaki, Bagmati and Koshi. Under each state, there will be some ethnic provinces. These provinces would have to be created on the basis of mutual negotiations among the various parties.
That is, Nepal should adopt a federal structure that will take into account the geographical, economic (resource endowment), ecological interdependence and ethnic diversity of the country. The federal structure should be such that would strengthen the territorial integrity of the nation, promote equitable economic development of the various regions within the federation, ensure fair and equitable social justice to all citizens of the country regardless of their gender, religion, ethnic origin and enhance social, cultural and ethnic harmony within the country.
This model will ensure that each state includes various ethnic groups (provinces) who will share the ownership of economic resources within the larger state that vary from energy sources (e.g. hydropower, wind power), natural resources (water, forest, and mining) to agricultural farm land (Tarai) to tourism, urban-rural economic linkages, and cash crops. Likewise, the entire state can also collectively deal with natural disasters such as climate change, flooding, soil erosion, glacial meltdown, drought, and human migration.
In addition to these territorial prescriptions, I propose other non-territorial aspects of federalism such as properly-defined ethnic rights and representations, and a proper division of power, resources and responsibility between the center and sub-regional entities. For a country with 100 ethnic groups, 70 languages, and spatially well-dispersed sizable Dalit and other ethnic populations, I believe that a pure ethno-based territorial federalism alone cannot address the ethnic, cultural and regional voices being raised, and is not socio-economically viable for the country.
Non-Territorial Issues
Stability of the House
The Proportional Representation (PR) system by itself is not a magic bullet, and there is a real chance that the country will begin to see coalition governments as a rule rather than an exception. This generally leads to instability. Our post-1990 period was also marred with frequent changes in government. However, there are some safety valves that can be installed to prevent such political volatilities.
One such mechanism that could be adopted is as follows. But it is more suitable for a parliamentary system with the prime minister (PM) as the executive head: In order to avoid frequent changes in governments that are more likely under the PR system, the parliament may adopt a “constructive vote of no-confidence” system. Under this system, as in Germany, the opposition party should be required to present a slate of the incoming government (including the name of the PM and his/her ministers) before filing for a vote of no-confidence motion. This system discourages the opposition from attempting to table frivolous no-confidence proposals. This German system is also under consideration in India for adoption to stop frequent changes in the government.
Political parties that secure less than 3 percent of the total votes cast in any federal election should not qualify to send representatives in the parliament under the PR system. This threshold should not be too high since it would be detrimental to smaller political parties and the functioning of democracy in a country such as Nepal with so much ethnic diversity. But as in many other countries that have adopted a PR system, some sort of threshold would be highly desirable for parliamentary stability and I believe that 2-3 percent requirement would be about right!
Internal Democracy
Internal democracy in party political structure is essential for democracy to work. Therefore, there should be a provision in the constitution to require all recognized political parties to have elections every five years to elect their leaders at all levels. Similarly, all parliamentary candidates of individual parties should be elected by the democratically-elected local committees of the political parties in the constituencies concerned or through their local voting.
Social Justice
There should be provisions for affirmative action in favor of women, Madhesis, Tharus, Janajatis, Adibasis, Dalits, and other traditionally marginalized and disadvantaged groups. Such measures should be time-bound or the laws to this effect should have sunset clauses, and thus such provisions should be handled through the legislative laws and not as part of the constitution.
Finally, I believe that Nepal’s development prospects are immense and Nepal should take full advantage of its proximity to the two rising economic superpowers of tomorrow – India and China. For this, Nepal needs political stability. We need to show to the world that we are a pearl between the two shining shells and not a yam between the two stones.
(Writer is Professor, University of New Mexico.)
bohara@unm.edu
Related story
Cooperative victims stage demonstration in Kathmandu (In Pictur...
