The experiments of federalism have been widely popular around the globe, implementing different modalities depending on the needs of an individual nation. The premise that underlie these experiments is that a person can perform better to fulfill her/his professional commitments or for personal well-being if s/he is independent. This also is the concept behind the idea of group autonomy. In a multi-cultural Nepal, the issue of federal autonomy has become a mandatory demand following the stagnation nearly in all sectors contributed by the unitary rule of 240 years.
Given overwhelming consensus among the people, new Nepal requires a federal human rights-friendly and democratic constitution that guarantees autonomies to its various ethno-linguistic, cultural and regional groups – to govern themselves. In actual fact, the concept of autonomy has its roots back to the era of King Prithvi Narayan Shah, who had granted autonomy to the nation of Limbus of eastern Nepal. The current Constituent Assembly (CA) was given the mandate on the premise of formulating a federal constitution, apart from declaring Nepal a republican state and abolition of monarchy. And as mandated by its manifesto and the assurance made to the people during the time of revolution, if the Maoists, as the leading political party of the present coalition government sidelined the agenda of federalism, it can inevitably be its political suicide.
Federalism is believed to have worked as a panacea for huge multi-cultural nations. But it can also serve to manage conflicts in a small heterogeneous state like Nepal by creating space for the marginalized groups.
A multi-ethnic unitary state has proclivities to suppress or even annihilate its socio-cultural groups to homogenize them into one entity by the dominant one(s), consequently paving way to autarchy or oligarchy. A living evidence is Nepal, a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual and multi-cultural country whose obsolete and unitary state machinery gives primacy to one language, i.e., the Khas and one culture, i.e., the Hindu. Its ingrained hegemonic culture of exclusivity has brought about an abysmal gap between the haves and the have-nots But the failure of the centralized state has swung the pendulum in favor of the federal mechanism in recent years across the globe.
To rule the diverse socio-cultural entities, Nepal’s rulers have taken suppressive and arbitrary measures, leading to the obliteration of scores of indigenous languages and cultures, let alone the damaging consequences stemmed from discriminatory practices and injustice rendered against these oppressed groups. Without social justice, people cannot claim political and economic rights, as the caste discrimination malignantly permeates every aspect of Nepali life. And now with the increasingly growing ethno-linguistic consciousness, the socio-cultural groups are striving for autonomy and right to self-determination, which means the rights of the people to administer (their state) the way they prefer, albeit in democratic principle it might imply the right to secede too, but such has been too exceptional a case.
Contending that Nepal is too small to use the federal model to allow autonomy to its diverse ethno-linguistic and regional groups, some critics, political leaders, even scholars have denounced the aforementioned approach, fearing that it may incite conflict and give rise to secession but such dialectics and claims are ill-founded and call for closer investigation.
The belief that Nepal is ‘small’ stems from the comparison to the country’s immediate neighbors, India and China, which are giant states, is an erroneous perception. But if we compare Nepal globally, it is seen to occupy the 40th position as the most populated country among a total of 227 countries (US Census Bureau 2003). In fact, Nepal leaves behind many successful federal countries like Switzerland, Belgium, Papua New Guinea, Austria, Holland and Israel in population, apart from its larger cultural diversity in terms of languages, religions and cultures. That Nepal is too small to become a federal state thus does not stand the scrutiny.
With the annexation of scores of petty hilly principalities into a Gorkha Empire by King Prithvi Narayan Shah in the eighteenth century, the sovereign nations fell under the centralized rule of the Shah kings, followed by the autocratic rule of the Rana oligarchs for another 104 years. This oppressive state policy continued even after the promulgation of multi-party democracy in 1950. It was thus natural for the indigenous and ethnic nationalities to demand autonomy and the right to self-determination.
If a federal unit tries to secede, it will have to face a strong retaliation from the center. In case of federal dispensation in Nepal, the center remains more powerful than the states, as it handles defense, monetary and other important matters. Albeit Nepal has often been regarded as a weak state, the receding state would still be weaker, and its survival itself could be at stake.
One of the genuine fears that many Nepalis harbor is from India regarded as a bully. But such sensitivity can also be a strong binding tie for the Nepalis and the regions around. Similar apprehensions have brought up alliance in market formation, for regional security and for solidarity, for example, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
Decentralization and devolution of power enhance economic development. An inclusive institution like a federation also promotes competition among its constituent units by tapping their comparative advantages in local resources and capabilities. It thus strengthens market economy and reduces regional economic imbalances caused by the negligence and ignorance of the center. Some of the regions can promote tourism; others may specialize in agricultural and herbal products, depending on the viability soil and climate. Whatever the case, the federal center can play the role of a guardian and monitor helping to bolster the economy of the backward regions. If the size of the regions is not viable, they can also merge together with bigger and prosperous cousins and rise up.
Autonomy should be the mainstay of federal Nepal. Each state shall have its own discreet constitution, legislative body, executive and judiciary to self-govern. Nonetheless, the autonomous or sub-autonomous states should function in compliance with the federal laws, too. As in India and elsewhere, Nepal’s federal government handles most of the important national matters, most essentially, foreign policy, National Defense, currency, roads and rails etc.
Owing to the polarized propositions forwarded by various individual scholars, social organizations and political parties on account of the anchors of federalism, Nepal cannot afford to grant autonomy on the basis of (only) ethnicity or language or region. It has to be an asymmetrical federalism, which means that some states may emerge on the basis of ethnicity, others may vie on regions, and yet others may compromise on the grounds of the homogeneity of ethnicity, language or culture, or even religion.
At the end of the day, the best option would be the formation of special commission to pass the bill of conceding autonomy to different groups or regions, with experts, representatives from different political parties (CA) and social organizations for consensus through democratic debates. As granting autonomy has been a ubiquitous political business since the end of the World War II, so as to begin with, we may start up with as less as half a dozen of federal units, having each unit homed by clustered compatible social groups for better co-existence and some group(s) may later spiral away seeking its own autonomy, like that happened elsewhere. For example, when Nigeria declared itself a Federal Republic in 1963, its three independent regions have now been split into 36 autonomous states within a period of five decades. Similarly, Sudan’s three ethno-federal states are now divided into 26 autonomous states.
That no matter how good or bad the situation may reverse into after the declaration of federal states by the new constitution, one obnoxious occurrence is sure to crop up if ethnic autonomy is not granted, given the enforcement of the rigid state policies regarding the ethnic groups in the past that led to the devastation of their cultural structure and ultimately their identity. And many actors now argue that without autonomous ethnic states, there will be no lasting peace in Nepal. If history has anything to tell us, policies that do not reflect the reality of fluid and changing nature of ethnic identity could (inevitably) lead to conflict.
Red tapism is well known in Nepal: The crude Byzantine official procedures based at the center have hit hard the rural entrepreneurs, who reside in the far-flung regions, are obliged to obtain business licenses for establishing an economic enterprise even of a modest size from the central authority in Kathmandu, where the height of corruption needs no mention. One can imagine the magnitude of their hardship imposed by the centralized unitary state, which is the key factor behind Nepal’s failed development. Thus, we must give precedence to regional autonomous governments to resolve their regional problems.
True, every federal structure will bring its own problems and challenges. But this means that the interim government and the CA members should seek consensus from as many groups of people as possible in working out the federal configuration involving experts that will cater to the socio-political, regional and economic needs of all the segments of the Nepali population.
Federalism is a constitutional expression of a pluralist democracy, associated to geo-ethnic relationship, a potent means of reintegrating the opposing centripetal and centrifugal entities present in a plural society into a harmonious whole. It is believed to have worked as a panacea for huge multi-cultural nations. But it can also serve to manage conflicts in a small heterogeneous state like Nepal by creating space for the marginalized groups.
An inclusive institution like federalism can inspire the feelings of ownership, imbuing a sense of competition among the units, and hence can promote economy, quality of life, education, healthcare, enhancing environmental awareness, and above all, can be a tangible tool to better restructure the state mechanism. It can also moderate the politics of extremism and antagonistic attitudes among the different ethnic and regional groups. Multi-ethnic countries with a unitary state mechanism are, in fact, more prone to conflicts contrary to federal countries, which are found to have achieved better success in managing them.
In the center of the tempest, the international community too has a meaningful role to play, rather than contriving and arguing against federalism saying that “Nepal is not yet ready for federalism,” that it can be very expensive, and that it can exacerbate ethnic hostilities and can be disastrous. Was Nepal ready for democracy? Was Nepal ready for a Maoist-led government? Was Nepal ready for the abolition of monarchy? But they did happen because the people wanted them. Two tangible questions: Does the international community want Kathmandu be stifled with the concentration of more power because they don’t want to deal with the leaders of the federal states all over the country? Who do the international community stand for, the majority poor people or handful of political leaders at the center? It should mull well over these questions.
That federalism can be a means to bring the people together by separating them into an integrated whole by offering more autonomy and rights to self-determination appears like a paradox but it is a paradox that deserves to be welcomed and faced than avoided.
PLEASE DESIST FROM ATTACKING THE WRITER PERSONALLY AND BE RESPECTFUL TO OTHER READERS.
Please give your full name while posting your comments. This is not to stifle the free flow of comments but your full name will enable us to print the comments in our newspaper.
Maybe, but the fact is who cares? We know there´s no weight in words. I´d rather settle with a legal system strong enough to ensure politicians don´t abuse their authority than some mumbo jumbo system without any spine. Rule of law is paramount. Then people will develop Nepal themselves. We don´t expect the system to be of any value to us, just that the system stop interfering with our businesses.
[more]
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
