The spirit of federalism among general public in Nepal was fostered with a strong sentiment of self-governance of their locality and setting themselves free from the top-down central authority. In other words, federalism was a response of grass-roots against social, cultural, economic, and political hegemony of the center and sub-centers. Such hegemony relationship is considered to be the main reason of increasing socio-economic inequality among populations living in the center/s (e.g. Kathmandu), sub-centers (district headquarters) and peripheries—areas that are generally isolated from the center and sub-centers.
Many people have proposed different explanations about the rationale of federalism. Some argue that if the country had been able to maintain a reasonable level of equity in basic wellbeing among its populations across regions/sub-regions, the issue of federalism would not have existed now. It is, in this context, important for us to reflect on the underpinnings of the socio-political phenomenon that conceived federalism in Nepal.
Despite the passage of an ambitious local governance act in 1990s, relationship between centers, sub-centers and peripheries remained strongly hierarchical in terms of institutional structure, information exchange and program/service delivery. The flow of information, decisions and resources remained largely controlled by the central or sub-central authorities. But perhaps even more important, the organization and management of public institutions at the local level continued to maintain the culture of the rule-of-privilege. Majority of minorities—women, indigenous, and the Dalits—continued to be excluded from the management and decision making processes at the local level. Such exclusion ultimately cost high for the society as these groups continued to loose interest in those institutions such as legal systems, administrative systems, health/education etc.
The lack of adequate inclusion of these populations in institutional stake helped maintain the gap between people and the institutions. In other words, public institutions could not adequately buy-in local people for their product and services. Consequently, poverty and vulnerability continued to transmit through generations especially among minority populations of peripheral areas. Maoists took the opportunity to play the chord of the state of vulnerability, which later turned out to be the fundamental agenda (federalism) of the democratic movement organized by the Maoists and seven-party alliance in 2006.
The moral ground of federalism in Nepal, as explained, lies in the persisting social inequalities across sub-regions and populations. Such inequalities are the result of the way Nepalese institutions function and their inability to have their stakeholders’ buy-in. A successful federal structure therefore should be able to end this gap, primarily by empowering locales in periphery and including them in institutional governance.
Various models (ethnicity-based, ethno-language based, geography-based, natural resources-based) proposed by different political parties and intellectuals therefore warrant a rigorous analysis and debate whether they can actually address the crux of the problem. Given that only six months remain to complete the constitution and that too amidst a tremendous political instability on the ground, it will be difficult to conduct such rigorous analysis one these models and find the “right one”. If so, Nepal may continue to risk instability, inequality and underdevelopment.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Challenges of Federalism
As I indicated in my previous post, continuation of discussion on federalism is a must now. Many key political parties particularly Nepali Congress and UML were relatively silent on this topic when it comes to the operationalization of federalism. This perhaps is no longer the case. Recent writings from one of the prominent leaders of Nepali Congress-- Dr. Ram Sharan Mahat-- has given some indication that leaders in these parties are also gradually starting to contemplate on it. One of his recent essays published in MYREPUBLICA on August 18 talks about the various procedural complexities of federalism.
Dr. Mahat has rightly given especial emphasis on the ethnic identity and inclusiveness issue in his piece although we would expect not just complexities but possible way-out as well from a prominent leader like him. The absence of such thoughts on the paper in-fact concerns me as it indicates that NC has not yet done adequate homework on this very crucial topic. In near future, I hope NC and UML leaders will be able to provide not only their personal thoughts, but also their parties' model on federalism to the general public. That would greatly help to facilitate the debate to a logical end.
Here is Dr. Mahat's article:
Challenges of Federalism
DR RAM SHARAN MAHAT
Provincial demarcation
The most difficult and tricky question about Nepal’s federalism remains the demarcation of provinces. The country has been declared federal but its exact form, shape and character are yet to be decided. Important questions relating to physical divisions and delineations of the provinces, sharing of power and responsibilities, fiscal federalism and the dispute resolution mechanism are yet to be grappled with. The Constituent Assembly (CA) is yet to come up with an acceptable solution, which could meet ethnic and regional aspirations and at the same time remain economically viable and administratively workable.
Conversion into a functioning federation requires careful thought and homework. It takes a long time and hard work to create and build a nation. But it does not take long to destroy it. Sovereignty is indivisible.
Political parties do not have uniform view on territorial divisions. Of all the parties, the Tarai-based Madhesi People’s Rights Forum and Tarai Madhes Democratic Party are very forthright on the nature of federation. They want autonomous Madhes (one or probably more) with right to self determination with all state paraphernalia except on defense, foreign policy, monetary matters, foreign trade and communications. They propose ethnicity, ecology and population homogeneity criteria for provincial demarcation. This was the core issue of the Madhesi movement, which eventually culminated in the third amendment of the Interim Constitution that recognized and accepted the aspirations of indigenous ethnic groups and the people of backward and other regions, and the people of Madhes, for autonomous provinces. The Maoists had proposed the division along ethnic lines from the early days of their insurgency. They planned eleven “autonomous ethnic” states and two “autonomous regional” provinces with “right to self-determination.” The obvious aim was to expand their limited support base among ethnic communities by arousing ethnic aspirations. They created numerous ethnic fronts, which were the backbone during insurgency. Federalism was not in the agenda of other parties before or during the People’ Movement. These parties are grappling with the issue after the constitutional amendment. Internal debate is taking place within Nepali Congress and CPN-UML on issues such as the nature of federal structure, the basis for delineating provinces and power sharing. Theoretically, they agree that the criteria for demarcation should not be confined to ethnicity and should also include geography, language, resource endowment, population concentration and economic viability. But when the issue of actual territorial demarcation comes, opinion differs even within parties.
The resolution is not easy. During the opinion gathering exercise by the CA members in the field, this author found that opinions are sharply divided. One opinion considers the federal idea wrong. If it is inevitable, the federal division should be on north-south basis like the old Development Regions as dictated by the country’s overall shape, which is almost jagged rectangular. They argue such a division will strengthen ecological complementarities and ensure inter-ethnic harmony. Others oppose this, as they fear that this will be another way to ensure hill hegemony even in provincial governance. Ethnic passions are high. Since the demand for a federal state emerged on ethnic ground, mainly from the Tarai, this sentiment cannot be dismissed easily. The existence of numerous sub-nationalities and languages within the region does not weaken the demand for one Madhes, as they want to give Hindi the status of the link language in the region. Different ethnic groups propose to carve provinces in their own ways to suit their convenience and ensure domination.
Modeling a federal structure that can meet the diverse ethnic and regional aspirations without weakening national unity and racial harmony is a serious challenge. Furthermore, the structure must be economically sustainable and suit the country’s geography where the distribution of population and natural resource is not balanced. Let us review some critical issues, which should be considered while crafting a solution.
Ethnicity & inclusiveness
First, Nepal’s multi-ethnic and multi-linguistic character is not confined at the national level but also in all possible federating territories. No viable federating unit possesses exclusive ethnic or linguistic predominance. They have mixed population with different mother tongues. Of the various ethnic groups, only Chhetris have more than 50 percent of the population in nine districts. Five other ethnic groups – Newar, Magar, Tharu, Tamang and Gurung – have one district each with majority population, not enough to make a viable federal unit.
Second, the country with 70 percent Hindus has declared itself secular in order for the statecraft to distance from religion. Does the same logic not apply with respect to other considerations, which are more personal, racial and communal in nature? Is it then proper to align a particular federal province with a particular ethnicity or a tribe? An ethnic state is contrary to the concept of equality and inclusive polity. The demand of inclusiveness dictated the need for state restructuring at the central level. It should be equally true at other levels also. History is replete with instances where the predominant community has used “push factor” through various means including violence vis a vis other minorities to drive away weaker communities to make the region more exclusive and monolithic. We have seen in recent days how the hill ethnic groups have been migrating from plain areas in the wake of ethnic tensions.
Third, the demand for ethnic identity and aspirations of Madhesis, Tharus, Muslims and other indigenous group is real and needs to be addressed. Similarly, the marginalized, disadvantaged communities will need political, cultural and administrative space. This can be addressed through appropriate provisions including affirmative actions and provision of “special status regions” with autonomy. Past agreements have accepted the principle of autonomous Madhes province. This cannot be ignored. But it cannot also be interpreted as an agreement for one single Pradesh of the Madhesis. The sentiments and sensibilities of other communities, including the ethnic Hill people, Tharus, Muslims and other indigenous groups who have been living there, must also be respected. The demand for ethnic and sub-national identities needs to be balanced with the consideration of economic rationality, resource endowment, development opportunities, administrative convenience and other considerations.
Fourth, the proponents of ethnic division forget the fact that the Dalits who form a sizable chunk of the population but neglected and deprived for centuries will have no defined territory of their own, as they are spread in all parts of the country. Real devolution of power will help them, not the ethnic states. What is important for such communities is the need for affirmative actions to ensure judicious space in all walks of national life.
Federal economics
Fifth, there has been no real debate on the economics of Nepal’s federalism or fiscal federalism. After all, Nepal is a small, underdeveloped and poor nation. The rising recurrent cost is already eating up the country’s revenue capacity. With one more government at the provincial level with all the paraphernalia – civil service, police system, all three branches of government, constitutional bodies – the overall administrative and recurrent public expenditure will shoot up with no commensurate growth in revenue. Hardly any revenue surplus will remain for development activities and redistribution to poorer provinces. Devendra Raj Pandey wonders whether the very notion of fiscal federalism is not a self-defeating proposition in Nepal as “federalism is an expensive form of government, perhaps not really affordable for one of the poorest countries of the world whose government has little or no revenue of its own left for development after incurring current expenditures.”
Sixth, related to the above is another fallacy. Those extolling the virtues of federalism assert that it will reduce regional disparities and banish poverty. This need not necessarily be so. When federating regions are allowed to compete with each other based on their respective strength, more resourceful regions will naturally benefit more and grow faster. This could accentuate regional disparities. Federal nations have not been able to reduce disparities even with fiscal redistribution through such mechanism as the Equalization Fund. In the USA, Connecticut’s per capita income is more than double compared to that of West Virginia. In Canada, Ontario’s per capita income is two times more than that of New Briswick. In India, compared to Haryana’s per capita income, Bihar has only one fifth while UP less than one third.
Seventh, these realities will lead one to suggest the imperative of a strong central authority with power of fiscal re-distribution. Resources – natural or human – are unevenly distributed between territories and provinces. So is the revenue potential. Consideration of equity and social justice demand that minimum of state services in fields like education, health, roads, power and other socio-economic services are uniformly provided to all regions with central intervention. Obviously, poorer units will need central support, which can be transferred from better-off provinces through fiscal mechanism.
Eighth, talking about economic consideration, experience shows that regions with multi-ethnic character have prospered better than communities with mono culture and nationalities. Relatively prosperous districts like Jhapa and Morang in the east, Chitwan in the central region, Rupandehi and Pokhara in the west have mixed ethnicities. Open and inclusive regions attract migration of more dynamic and hardworking people from different parts of the country.
Resource conflict
Ninth, natural resource represents another possible source of conflict in a federal system. Not all provinces are endowed with rich natural resources. There may also be sudden new discovery of oil fields or mines of precious metals. The claim of the concerned province for exclusive benefit will come naturally. But equity and social justice demands that this will also have to benefit other less fortunate regions. Experience elsewhere has shown that local or regional claims on such resources have led to internal strife and civil wars. Potential conflict on the use and development of water resource – the known resource endowment of Nepal – is real. A known analyst on water resource Ratna Sansar Shrestha wrote in the Nagarik daily last week that the federalism under discussion at the moment in Nepal could seriously hinder the exploitation of Nepal’s water resource for the country’s progress.
Local government
Tenth, one neglected agenda in the federal debate is the threat to local self government.
Democracy has no meaning if the local bodies are not empowered effectively. In a federal set-up, there is risk of local power being eroded. Nepal’s VDCs enjoy more power than their counterparts of similar sizes in a federal country like India. The federating provinces have a tendency to squeeze financial and administrative power from the local bodies. This must be resisted at all costs. The administrative and revenue functions which can be handled at the local level must be constitutionally guaranteed. In the ultimate analysis, democracy means empowerment of individuals, followed by local entities, regions and nation in that order. From the inclusive perspective also, only the local government will be able to offer political and other space for small and localized ethnic groups, which cannot reach the regional and central government because of their limited reach.
Conclusion
For some, federalism offers hope of a panacea to Nepal’s unjust past. Others fear it could prove a loreli song – inviting deconstruction and disparity. The question now is not whether it is suitable for Nepal or not. The road to federalism is a fait accompli. The challenge is how to craft a system that meets the criteria of administrative convenience, economic rationality and offers opportunities of political and cultural space for all communities without discrimination. The mosaic of diversity of this nation exists practically in every region, which must be recognized and respected. The model should therefore address ethnic and regional aspirations, while strengthening racial harmony and national unity.
This could be a tall order. But we must be able to make this happen. Otherwise the future of the nation may be at peril. The country is already exhibiting the symptoms of a ‘failing state’. Rather than hastening the process, we must reverse it. We cannot afford to re-enact another Yugoslavia or Nigeria or go the Uganda way. The Yugoslavia as we know does not exist any more. Originally divided into three ethnic federal provinces, Nigeria has now three dozen such provinces. Uganda’s federal experiment failed and reverted back to unitary system.
Nepal was born a unitary country and has a long history. Conversion into a functioning federation requires careful thought and homework. It takes a long time and hard work to create and build a nation. But it does not take long to destroy it. Sovereignty is indivisible. There is no alternative to a strong center with power of fiscal redistribution and avoiding inter-state conflicts over natural resource and other issues.
Demarcation of federal boundaries is a serious and complicated task. The outcry of ethnic and ecological divisions is going side by side with consideration of other criteria such as regional inter-linkages, economic sustainability and administrative convenience. High asymmetry in the size and economic status of federating units is also not desirable. At the same time, the country cannot afford the prospect of serious ethnic divide corresponding to ecological and geographical divide.
The country has more than 100 ethnic groups with 90 languages. One single ethnic state could invite many more to follow. The solution may lie in the creation of many more autonomous regions, which could address both identity issue and economic rationality. But all the provinces may not possess all the paraphernalia of federal provinces. The small size of our economy cannot sustain many provinces and a big government. Everybody is aware of public resentment against a big government, including the size of the national legislature. One should be careful about unnecessary public offices, redundant bureaucracy and public officials at various tiers, which the nation cannot afford. The country must invent its own brand of federalism, not an imitation of others.
(Concluded)
Source: MyRupublica--Published on 2009-08-18 08:43:35
Dr. Mahat has rightly given especial emphasis on the ethnic identity and inclusiveness issue in his piece although we would expect not just complexities but possible way-out as well from a prominent leader like him. The absence of such thoughts on the paper in-fact concerns me as it indicates that NC has not yet done adequate homework on this very crucial topic. In near future, I hope NC and UML leaders will be able to provide not only their personal thoughts, but also their parties' model on federalism to the general public. That would greatly help to facilitate the debate to a logical end.
Here is Dr. Mahat's article:
Challenges of Federalism
DR RAM SHARAN MAHAT
Provincial demarcation
The most difficult and tricky question about Nepal’s federalism remains the demarcation of provinces. The country has been declared federal but its exact form, shape and character are yet to be decided. Important questions relating to physical divisions and delineations of the provinces, sharing of power and responsibilities, fiscal federalism and the dispute resolution mechanism are yet to be grappled with. The Constituent Assembly (CA) is yet to come up with an acceptable solution, which could meet ethnic and regional aspirations and at the same time remain economically viable and administratively workable.
Conversion into a functioning federation requires careful thought and homework. It takes a long time and hard work to create and build a nation. But it does not take long to destroy it. Sovereignty is indivisible.
Political parties do not have uniform view on territorial divisions. Of all the parties, the Tarai-based Madhesi People’s Rights Forum and Tarai Madhes Democratic Party are very forthright on the nature of federation. They want autonomous Madhes (one or probably more) with right to self determination with all state paraphernalia except on defense, foreign policy, monetary matters, foreign trade and communications. They propose ethnicity, ecology and population homogeneity criteria for provincial demarcation. This was the core issue of the Madhesi movement, which eventually culminated in the third amendment of the Interim Constitution that recognized and accepted the aspirations of indigenous ethnic groups and the people of backward and other regions, and the people of Madhes, for autonomous provinces. The Maoists had proposed the division along ethnic lines from the early days of their insurgency. They planned eleven “autonomous ethnic” states and two “autonomous regional” provinces with “right to self-determination.” The obvious aim was to expand their limited support base among ethnic communities by arousing ethnic aspirations. They created numerous ethnic fronts, which were the backbone during insurgency. Federalism was not in the agenda of other parties before or during the People’ Movement. These parties are grappling with the issue after the constitutional amendment. Internal debate is taking place within Nepali Congress and CPN-UML on issues such as the nature of federal structure, the basis for delineating provinces and power sharing. Theoretically, they agree that the criteria for demarcation should not be confined to ethnicity and should also include geography, language, resource endowment, population concentration and economic viability. But when the issue of actual territorial demarcation comes, opinion differs even within parties.
The resolution is not easy. During the opinion gathering exercise by the CA members in the field, this author found that opinions are sharply divided. One opinion considers the federal idea wrong. If it is inevitable, the federal division should be on north-south basis like the old Development Regions as dictated by the country’s overall shape, which is almost jagged rectangular. They argue such a division will strengthen ecological complementarities and ensure inter-ethnic harmony. Others oppose this, as they fear that this will be another way to ensure hill hegemony even in provincial governance. Ethnic passions are high. Since the demand for a federal state emerged on ethnic ground, mainly from the Tarai, this sentiment cannot be dismissed easily. The existence of numerous sub-nationalities and languages within the region does not weaken the demand for one Madhes, as they want to give Hindi the status of the link language in the region. Different ethnic groups propose to carve provinces in their own ways to suit their convenience and ensure domination.
Modeling a federal structure that can meet the diverse ethnic and regional aspirations without weakening national unity and racial harmony is a serious challenge. Furthermore, the structure must be economically sustainable and suit the country’s geography where the distribution of population and natural resource is not balanced. Let us review some critical issues, which should be considered while crafting a solution.
Ethnicity & inclusiveness
First, Nepal’s multi-ethnic and multi-linguistic character is not confined at the national level but also in all possible federating territories. No viable federating unit possesses exclusive ethnic or linguistic predominance. They have mixed population with different mother tongues. Of the various ethnic groups, only Chhetris have more than 50 percent of the population in nine districts. Five other ethnic groups – Newar, Magar, Tharu, Tamang and Gurung – have one district each with majority population, not enough to make a viable federal unit.
Second, the country with 70 percent Hindus has declared itself secular in order for the statecraft to distance from religion. Does the same logic not apply with respect to other considerations, which are more personal, racial and communal in nature? Is it then proper to align a particular federal province with a particular ethnicity or a tribe? An ethnic state is contrary to the concept of equality and inclusive polity. The demand of inclusiveness dictated the need for state restructuring at the central level. It should be equally true at other levels also. History is replete with instances where the predominant community has used “push factor” through various means including violence vis a vis other minorities to drive away weaker communities to make the region more exclusive and monolithic. We have seen in recent days how the hill ethnic groups have been migrating from plain areas in the wake of ethnic tensions.
Third, the demand for ethnic identity and aspirations of Madhesis, Tharus, Muslims and other indigenous group is real and needs to be addressed. Similarly, the marginalized, disadvantaged communities will need political, cultural and administrative space. This can be addressed through appropriate provisions including affirmative actions and provision of “special status regions” with autonomy. Past agreements have accepted the principle of autonomous Madhes province. This cannot be ignored. But it cannot also be interpreted as an agreement for one single Pradesh of the Madhesis. The sentiments and sensibilities of other communities, including the ethnic Hill people, Tharus, Muslims and other indigenous groups who have been living there, must also be respected. The demand for ethnic and sub-national identities needs to be balanced with the consideration of economic rationality, resource endowment, development opportunities, administrative convenience and other considerations.
Fourth, the proponents of ethnic division forget the fact that the Dalits who form a sizable chunk of the population but neglected and deprived for centuries will have no defined territory of their own, as they are spread in all parts of the country. Real devolution of power will help them, not the ethnic states. What is important for such communities is the need for affirmative actions to ensure judicious space in all walks of national life.
Federal economics
Fifth, there has been no real debate on the economics of Nepal’s federalism or fiscal federalism. After all, Nepal is a small, underdeveloped and poor nation. The rising recurrent cost is already eating up the country’s revenue capacity. With one more government at the provincial level with all the paraphernalia – civil service, police system, all three branches of government, constitutional bodies – the overall administrative and recurrent public expenditure will shoot up with no commensurate growth in revenue. Hardly any revenue surplus will remain for development activities and redistribution to poorer provinces. Devendra Raj Pandey wonders whether the very notion of fiscal federalism is not a self-defeating proposition in Nepal as “federalism is an expensive form of government, perhaps not really affordable for one of the poorest countries of the world whose government has little or no revenue of its own left for development after incurring current expenditures.”
Sixth, related to the above is another fallacy. Those extolling the virtues of federalism assert that it will reduce regional disparities and banish poverty. This need not necessarily be so. When federating regions are allowed to compete with each other based on their respective strength, more resourceful regions will naturally benefit more and grow faster. This could accentuate regional disparities. Federal nations have not been able to reduce disparities even with fiscal redistribution through such mechanism as the Equalization Fund. In the USA, Connecticut’s per capita income is more than double compared to that of West Virginia. In Canada, Ontario’s per capita income is two times more than that of New Briswick. In India, compared to Haryana’s per capita income, Bihar has only one fifth while UP less than one third.
Seventh, these realities will lead one to suggest the imperative of a strong central authority with power of fiscal re-distribution. Resources – natural or human – are unevenly distributed between territories and provinces. So is the revenue potential. Consideration of equity and social justice demand that minimum of state services in fields like education, health, roads, power and other socio-economic services are uniformly provided to all regions with central intervention. Obviously, poorer units will need central support, which can be transferred from better-off provinces through fiscal mechanism.
Eighth, talking about economic consideration, experience shows that regions with multi-ethnic character have prospered better than communities with mono culture and nationalities. Relatively prosperous districts like Jhapa and Morang in the east, Chitwan in the central region, Rupandehi and Pokhara in the west have mixed ethnicities. Open and inclusive regions attract migration of more dynamic and hardworking people from different parts of the country.
Resource conflict
Ninth, natural resource represents another possible source of conflict in a federal system. Not all provinces are endowed with rich natural resources. There may also be sudden new discovery of oil fields or mines of precious metals. The claim of the concerned province for exclusive benefit will come naturally. But equity and social justice demands that this will also have to benefit other less fortunate regions. Experience elsewhere has shown that local or regional claims on such resources have led to internal strife and civil wars. Potential conflict on the use and development of water resource – the known resource endowment of Nepal – is real. A known analyst on water resource Ratna Sansar Shrestha wrote in the Nagarik daily last week that the federalism under discussion at the moment in Nepal could seriously hinder the exploitation of Nepal’s water resource for the country’s progress.
Local government
Tenth, one neglected agenda in the federal debate is the threat to local self government.
Democracy has no meaning if the local bodies are not empowered effectively. In a federal set-up, there is risk of local power being eroded. Nepal’s VDCs enjoy more power than their counterparts of similar sizes in a federal country like India. The federating provinces have a tendency to squeeze financial and administrative power from the local bodies. This must be resisted at all costs. The administrative and revenue functions which can be handled at the local level must be constitutionally guaranteed. In the ultimate analysis, democracy means empowerment of individuals, followed by local entities, regions and nation in that order. From the inclusive perspective also, only the local government will be able to offer political and other space for small and localized ethnic groups, which cannot reach the regional and central government because of their limited reach.
Conclusion
For some, federalism offers hope of a panacea to Nepal’s unjust past. Others fear it could prove a loreli song – inviting deconstruction and disparity. The question now is not whether it is suitable for Nepal or not. The road to federalism is a fait accompli. The challenge is how to craft a system that meets the criteria of administrative convenience, economic rationality and offers opportunities of political and cultural space for all communities without discrimination. The mosaic of diversity of this nation exists practically in every region, which must be recognized and respected. The model should therefore address ethnic and regional aspirations, while strengthening racial harmony and national unity.
This could be a tall order. But we must be able to make this happen. Otherwise the future of the nation may be at peril. The country is already exhibiting the symptoms of a ‘failing state’. Rather than hastening the process, we must reverse it. We cannot afford to re-enact another Yugoslavia or Nigeria or go the Uganda way. The Yugoslavia as we know does not exist any more. Originally divided into three ethnic federal provinces, Nigeria has now three dozen such provinces. Uganda’s federal experiment failed and reverted back to unitary system.
Nepal was born a unitary country and has a long history. Conversion into a functioning federation requires careful thought and homework. It takes a long time and hard work to create and build a nation. But it does not take long to destroy it. Sovereignty is indivisible. There is no alternative to a strong center with power of fiscal redistribution and avoiding inter-state conflicts over natural resource and other issues.
Demarcation of federal boundaries is a serious and complicated task. The outcry of ethnic and ecological divisions is going side by side with consideration of other criteria such as regional inter-linkages, economic sustainability and administrative convenience. High asymmetry in the size and economic status of federating units is also not desirable. At the same time, the country cannot afford the prospect of serious ethnic divide corresponding to ecological and geographical divide.
The country has more than 100 ethnic groups with 90 languages. One single ethnic state could invite many more to follow. The solution may lie in the creation of many more autonomous regions, which could address both identity issue and economic rationality. But all the provinces may not possess all the paraphernalia of federal provinces. The small size of our economy cannot sustain many provinces and a big government. Everybody is aware of public resentment against a big government, including the size of the national legislature. One should be careful about unnecessary public offices, redundant bureaucracy and public officials at various tiers, which the nation cannot afford. The country must invent its own brand of federalism, not an imitation of others.
(Concluded)
Source: MyRupublica--Published on 2009-08-18 08:43:35
Friday, June 12, 2009
Federalism-- Why it warrants more debate?
Nepal is passing through one after another political complexity when the country is in a utter need of peace and consensus politics. The recent step-out of Maoists from the government, ongoing laughable "struggle" in the formulation of new government, and ever increasing confidence gap between political actors -- all appear to be taking the political actors away from many real challenges Nepal faces at the moment.
One of the most sensitive topics of this moment is federalism. This was perhaps one of the main reasons why people's movement-II succeeded. Nepal at present however is "suffering" because of many confusing aspirations the prevailing notion of federalism brought about to the Nepalese society. Many ethnic groups, large or small, are organizing protests across the country demanding their own ethnicity-based autonomous territorial units. Even Newar ethnic group unexpectedly came out on street demanding for their own separate state in Kathmandu and their dominant areas. Just today, Magar ethnic group also organized protest demanding the same. Everyday protests like these are crippling the daily life of people, businesses, and regular day to day operations (see http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=198911).
Some political parties, for example, Maoists, support federal model based on ethnic division. This is why most of these ethnic protest groups are Maoists or represent its sister organizations. These protests are happening at a time when political leaders are not being able to maintain and manage the government. A weak central government with continuing protest on the street has turned Nepal into a serious political turmoil.
While the prime most need for now may be to establish a government system that can secure confidence from major political parties and last for a longer period of time, it is critically important for all political parties to seriously engage/debate on the issue of federalism as well. At this point, this topic has been the prime source of major shut-downs and strikes in Nepal. It may be because, the people, regardless of their political party affiliation, may not have clearly understood the concept of federalism. That is to say that their leaders have not been able to clarify them various pros and cons of different model of federalism and their relevance in the context of Nepal. As such, people are refrained from making a conscious decision about the model. Unless they are given choices to make conscious decision, unrest in the street is likely to continue in future, which will continue to cripple the prosperity of our nation which is already suffering from acute poverty and violence.
Hence, it seems to me that this is the time our political leaders make some compromises on their personal and political egos and help form a resilient government. Then focus on the constitution making process, with richly engaging on discussions concerning to federalism. A certain form of federalism should not be adopted by any political party just because it helps gain the party's immediate popularity among the masses. Rather, every social and economic viability must be analyzed against any form of federal structure, and accordingly the message must be channeled to the public. Only by doing so will help everyone to understand the concept of federalism and select an appropriate model for Nepal, if needed at all, without damaging regular economy and social life.
One of the most sensitive topics of this moment is federalism. This was perhaps one of the main reasons why people's movement-II succeeded. Nepal at present however is "suffering" because of many confusing aspirations the prevailing notion of federalism brought about to the Nepalese society. Many ethnic groups, large or small, are organizing protests across the country demanding their own ethnicity-based autonomous territorial units. Even Newar ethnic group unexpectedly came out on street demanding for their own separate state in Kathmandu and their dominant areas. Just today, Magar ethnic group also organized protest demanding the same. Everyday protests like these are crippling the daily life of people, businesses, and regular day to day operations (see http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=198911).
Some political parties, for example, Maoists, support federal model based on ethnic division. This is why most of these ethnic protest groups are Maoists or represent its sister organizations. These protests are happening at a time when political leaders are not being able to maintain and manage the government. A weak central government with continuing protest on the street has turned Nepal into a serious political turmoil.
While the prime most need for now may be to establish a government system that can secure confidence from major political parties and last for a longer period of time, it is critically important for all political parties to seriously engage/debate on the issue of federalism as well. At this point, this topic has been the prime source of major shut-downs and strikes in Nepal. It may be because, the people, regardless of their political party affiliation, may not have clearly understood the concept of federalism. That is to say that their leaders have not been able to clarify them various pros and cons of different model of federalism and their relevance in the context of Nepal. As such, people are refrained from making a conscious decision about the model. Unless they are given choices to make conscious decision, unrest in the street is likely to continue in future, which will continue to cripple the prosperity of our nation which is already suffering from acute poverty and violence.
Hence, it seems to me that this is the time our political leaders make some compromises on their personal and political egos and help form a resilient government. Then focus on the constitution making process, with richly engaging on discussions concerning to federalism. A certain form of federalism should not be adopted by any political party just because it helps gain the party's immediate popularity among the masses. Rather, every social and economic viability must be analyzed against any form of federal structure, and accordingly the message must be channeled to the public. Only by doing so will help everyone to understand the concept of federalism and select an appropriate model for Nepal, if needed at all, without damaging regular economy and social life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)