In today's editorial, the Kathmandu Post raised an important issue of polity-led corruption at the local level (i.e. district, village, and municipality level); and various proposals coming in to address this problem. Corruption has always been a big bottleneck in Nepal's development struggle which has only increased after the devolution of local elected bodies in 2002 by the Sher Bahadur Deuba Government. Local level election has not been able to take place since the last 13 years thus seriously undermining local democratic governance. This rightly appears to be the major concern of Nepalese people on Himalmedia's nationwide public opinion survey in May 2011 (http://www.nepalitimes.com.np/issue/2011/05/13/ByTheWay/18193).
As indicated in the Post's editorial (see below), local level elections are not possible anytime soon as the country hasn't drafted constitution yet. Therefore some kinds of alternative provisions must be established by replacing or re-structuring the all party mechanism (instituted in 2006)- a widely corrupted mechanism- which is responsible for budget disbursement decisions at the local level. The proposal put forward by local development minister Urmila Aryal- seven member council represented by all party representatives according to the share of votes they received in 2008 constitutional assembly election- is a good initiative. Such organizational structure may help the Councils to be a bit more responsible for public as the dominant party representatives will be at peoples' target if things go wrong. But as noted in the Post's editorial, there is not much room to be fully optimistic if the Councils will function accountably and corruption-free (see explanations in editorial piece below).
While a more rigorous debate should continue on this before finalizing a certain mechanism, I think one component will be crucial for the proposal Councils' effective functioning. That is public consultation and feedback system. This component seems to be missing in current proposals and in the debates of local institution. What I meant by public consultation and feedback system is: at every local council level there must be regular consultation meetings-- like a townhall meeting-- inviting all community members to share and update Council's plans and activities, and receive peoples' feedback. Such townhall meetings could be done once in a three month (or as appropriate) by informing all local stakeholders (public, NGOs, businesses etc)in advance. Especial efforts should be given to ensure that local stakeholders, including women, minorities, and vulnerable populations are aware about the meetings, its processes, and importance of their participation in such meetings.
Peoples' consultation and feedback system becomes critical for transparent functioning of public institutions, particularly the ones like local council as proposed by Minister Aryal. The Councils will be forced to remain accountable to their local constituencies when they have to face local communities, answer their questions, and consult and incorporate their feedback from a collective venue on a regular basis. This process will help local communities to take charge of the matters that are of their interest by not completely relying on the Council. This will build a basis for a strong democratic governance at the local level. This foundation will also provide a much needed local level organizational structure for an accountable democratic governance when Nepal is able to have local election in next few years.
*******************
JUN 26, 2011 (Kathmandu Post Editorial)
It has by now become abundantly clear that there are major dysfunctions in the operation of local bodies—DDCs, VDCs and municipalities. In particular, the all-party mechanisms constituted after 2006, where in the absence of elected local bodies, committees consisting of members of all political parties in the area are responsible for taking decisions on the disbursement of funding, have been shown to be greatly prone to major corruption. Funds distributed from the centre are often treated by the political parties at the local levels as resources to be distributed among themselves and to party supporters. As parties command substantial power, there is not much that the local officials from the Ministry of Local Development can do about this state of affairs.
All this, of course, has been recognised for a few years now. It is also recognised that local elections will, by putting in place elected representatives accountable to their populations, contribute towards improving this state of affairs. But it is also recognised that it will be years before elections are held and that other remedies are required in the interregnum. The Ministry of Local Development had floated some proposals last year that appear to have been entirely disregarded by the government. Now the Local Development Minister Urmila Aryal has come up with a new proposal, the gist of which appears to be that the all-party mechanisms should be replaced with a seven-member representative council on which each party will receive representation according to their share of the vote in the 2008 CA elections. The objective appears to be granting parties with a larger mandate, a larger role in local governance. The reasoning goes like this: Tasked with a larger mandate, the parties will assume greater responsibility, development funds will be better spent and corruption will decline.
While the intentions behind Minister Aryal’s proposals are welcome, let us not be too optimistic that, even if implemented, they will lead to a major change in the existing state of affairs. Corruption in local bodies has become too endemic for such a limited change to control. Measures that hold political party representatives accountable for the money they disburse and provisions for investigation and prosecution is what is required. There is currently no legal provision that can hold local party representatives to account; it is government bureaucrats at the local level who bear legal responsibility for any corruption that takes place. Further, corruption will continue to flourish as long as local party leaders possess the patronage and support of their leaders in Kathmandu. It is an open secret that the corruption in local bodies often occurs in collusion with top political party leaders in Kathmandu. Besides firm measures and strong institutions that are able to hold local party leaders to account, then, what is required is an overhaul in the attitudes of top-level leaders towards public funds. Local governance will continue to be dismal unless this happens (http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-post/2011/06/26/editorial/back-to-basics/223325.html).
Monday, June 27, 2011
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Reducing Inequality: Underlying Challenge of Federalism in Nepal
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.
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, 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.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Federalism -- Conceptual Issues
Federalism is perhaps the most debated topic among Nepalese these days, and it surely deserves this kind of attention. The concept itself was first advocated by Maoists and later endorsed by other political parties.
The basic principle of federalism is to devolve the power from center to local. This is the central point of federal structure discourse. The concept is critically important for the development for several reasons. At a theoretical level also, federalism can not be questioned for a country like Nepal. Where the problem lies however is on designing the structure or finding an appropriate model of federalism suitable for a challenging socio-physical economies. To overcome such problems, we first need to understand what are important concepts of federalism itself. Next, understanding also needs to be developed on how such concepts can be employed in the context of Nepal. Unless we are clear about these issues, discussion on federalism can not be of much fruitful.
Here is an article written by Dr. Follesdal on Nepalese context. This article is short and give some brief conceptual explanation on federalism.
************************************************************************************
On Federalism, Ethnicity and Human Rights in Nepal
The Constituent Assemby must braid a constitution that will protect and promote the best interests of the braid that is the Nepali people and peoples; a constitution that helps create a Nepal free from domination from all centres of power, central as well as regional.
Andreas FollesdalBy Andreas Follesdal
One of the many intriguing and important tasks of the Nepal's Constituent Assemby concerns federalism. Not only must the CA write a constitution that secures equal dignity and respect for all Nepali citizens, regardless of ethnicity and caste, the voters also clearly supported parties that seek to create a federal Nepal. So the question is not whether Nepal should be a federal state, but rather what sort of federal state Nepal should be.
The task of the CA is now how to translate this idea of federalism into a constitution – the ‘operating system’ – of a democratic, human rights-respecting Nepal republic. For instance: Should the federal borders of Nepal reflect ethnicity and geography, as the Maoists urged? Or should the CA follow the CPN (UML) and Nepali Congress manifestos, and create provinces based on geography, natural resources, language, or culture? Indeed: how many provinces should there be? 11, as the Maoists called for? Should there be one united province for the Tarai, as the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum insist?
How can the CA’s choice of federal institutional design elements be faithful to the best interests of the Nepali people? This is an important challenge, since there are many different ways that the institutions of a state can be democratic, ensure human rights – and embody federal features. There are clearly no ‘best’ institutional blueprint for all states: that depends on the national histories and memories, geography, and cultures. And any assessment of appropriateness are most legitimately made by the informed and reflective citizenry themselves.
The following reflections by an ‘outsider’ is therefore limited to a reminder of four varieties of federal elements, combined with arguments in favor and against each drawn from an interpretation of other states’ experiences. Two of the four are territorial: Constitutional and Political. Two are non-territorial: Minority Rights, and Minority Representation. Some arguments and lessons may be helpful also for Nepal’s challenges.
Two features of the people – or rather peoples - of Nepal are especially salient for this discussion. The poet Madhav Prasad Ghimire said of the national poet Bhanubhakta Acharya (1814-1868) that he “braided the people of Nepal into a national string.” The metaphor of a braid is particularly helpful and appropriate in this context: Nepal firstly consists of very many different groups. Numbers vary, but Nepal is said to have well over 90 caste and ethnic nationalities, 70-90 languages, 9 religious groups, often overlapping. And secondly, members of these groups often live side by side: few if any ethnic groups are the sole inhabitants of any geographical area, and many castes and ethnic groups live fully dispersed among each other.
The Puzzle: If Federalism is the solution, what is the problem?
One helpful way to assess federal institutional alternatives is to explore why so many Nepali citizens and their political parties urged federalism. If they see this as the solution, what do they regard as the problem?
Many observers seem to agree that one reason for the calls for federalism was a wide spread perception that the central authorities had long dominated many of the other ethnic groups and castes of Nepal. Calls for federalism thus sought to convey that the power of the Centre must be constrained or removed, to end domination and to secure a more fair distribution of opportunities and living conditions. Human rights constraints and federal features have historically often been used for this very objective: to prevent domination by the centres.
European history of Federalism
A brief historical reminder helps identify four different federal features that the CA might draw from.
Johannes Althusius (1557-1630) is regarded as the “father of federalism” in Europe. Living in the German city Emden, he sought protection for his own Calvinist minority religion within Emden, and protection for the city itself. His group faced two sources of domination: from the ‘Local Center’ - the Lutheran provincial Lord -, and from the ‘Central Centre’: the Catholic Emperor. He argued that these central authorities should grant religious freedom to his and other groups, among peoples living side by side in the realm, to avoid violent upheavals. Two lessons are particulary relevant:
1) Federal thought has long been concerned to prevent domination from several power sources.
2) The history of federalism recognized several different means to combat domination, - not only territorial subdivisions. For instance local autonomy - immunity from interference by the center - with regard to religion. Another example is ‘consociational’ arrangements. There, different segments of a society, split along religious or ethnic lines, nevertheless cooperate by each having a share in the exercise of central powers.
Four Federal Features
Let us now consider four different institutional arrangements within this federal tradition. All of them can sometimes serve to reduce conflict and domination. This is partly because they reduce the need for complete agreement among individuals: people who disagree about some issues can instead agree to decide separately on these contested policies. And these arrangements can protect from interference and thus remove domination, at least in some circumstances.
Note also that all of them require attention to two central contested issues:
1) how to determine the composition of the sub-units, be they geographical or demograpic. In the case of territorial regions: where should the borders be drawn? In the case of ethnic or other group based division: who decides on the appropriate group divisions, and who decides contested cases of membership?
2) Which powers should these sub-units have: should they for instance have the final say over school curriculum, taxation, official language or holidays, land reform, agricultural policies, cultural subsidies, water management, and/or land reform?
1 Territorial Constitutional Federalism
In this version, the constitution divides the country into territorial regions, and grants some power to them, and some power to the centre. This is typical of federal states, such as the US, India, Germany.
The benefit of such entrenchment of a division of power is that it can reduce or remove fears that the centre will dominate the regions. However, note that other forms of domination over ethnic groups may remain, especially where the territorial borders fail to match those of ethnic groups. There are at least two cases relevant for Nepal: since there will be minorities within any area of Nepal, these will continue to risk domination from the ‘Local Centre’ where decisions will reflect the interests of the local majority. Thus Local Development Minister Dev Gurung has rejected calls for a separate province for the Terai, since that would infringe on rights of indigenous groups, and give some groups monopoly of power.
Secondly, this kind of arrangement does little to protect widely dispersed, greatly disadvantaged groups such as the Dalits. They will simply be subjected to many sources of domination, by each regional authority, rather than only by the central authorities in Kathmandu. Human rights protections will still constrain both local and central authorities, but this federal feature will not help the Dalits.
In short: Territorial Constitutional Federalism does not guarantee the end of domination of ethnic minorities, but may simply create more sites of ‘local’ domination in the various sub-units, especially when different ethnic groups and castes live intermingled.
Such constitutional federalism also has several disadvantages. The entrenched division of powers is by design difficult to change, but should not be completely out of reach, otherwise future challenges may be impossible to handle. Some also fear that this sort of arrangement may fuel calls for secession, though that risk may be alleviated when the regional authorities also enjoy a share of the central powers, when human rights generally are protected, etc. It may also hinder a shared ‘national identity.’ Finally, note that such arrangements may hinder equalization of living conditions across regions, since richer regions will question why they should take responsibility for the poorer areas.
2 Territorial Political Federalism: Decentralisation
An alternative territorial arrangement is one where the central parliament grants local authorities autonomy over specific issues. Such arrangements allows the local communities more control over matters that are important to them, and avoids the rigidity problems of constitutional entrenchments.
However, such arrangements may not provide quite as strong safeguards against future domination, since the central authorities may at any time withdraw the powers they have granted. And with the added possibilities of dynamic change of borders and allocation of powers comes the risk of political manipulation for inappropriate objectives. Finally, the ethnic and other minorities that live within each region face similar risks of domination under this system as they face in a unified state with centralized power. The only difference is that domination is now perpetrated by a regional majority.
We now consider two ‘non-territorial’ federal features that may reduce domination of ethnic groups. They seek to give various ethnic groups more protection, or more power – without tying these privileges to a specific territory.
3 Nonterritorial Minority Rights
A third institutional arrangement is what Althusius urged for his own religious group: collective rights and other human rights to groups who otherwise face risks of domination, be it freedom from interference or more substantive autonomy. These rights can typically concern matters of religion, language, culture, education or even some forms of taxation. We find expression of some such rights in ILO Convention number 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples. Other such rights may include measures of ‘reverse discrimination’ etc, to alleviate the impact of past and present injustice and oppression.
A benefit of such arrangements is that they can greatly help minorities who live geographically dispersed or intermingled with other groups.
Yet there are also some drawbacks. For instance, the appropriate set of rights may have to be carefully tailored to the specific needs and histories of each group, and a too extensive system of such special rights may hinder a national sense of unity and solidarity. Many also point to the risks such special rights can pose to vulnerable persons within the minority. For instance, special care must be taken to protect women from harmful elements of some traditional cultures and practices. Many human rights can provide some safeguard against these sources of domination.
Other problems arise for efforts to alleviate past injustice: many supportive measures, extra resources etc will tend to benefit the most privileged members of disadvantaged groups, rather than the worst off members. It may also be important to have clear targets for when to end such measures. Insofar as membership criteria and benefits is a matter of political debate there is obviously the risk of manipulation: scarce resources may not reach those ethnic groups and castes, and especially those members thereof, whose claims are most urgent.
4 Nonterritorial Minority Representation
The fourth kind of arrangement grants groups representation in the bodies that make common decisions. One case is the consociational system mentioned above, where each social group is represented, and may even enjoy veto over common decisions.
Mechanisms may include quotas or designated seats in legislatures for specified minorities. These arrangements may be especially important in ‘first-past-the-post’ systems, but also systems with Proportional Representation (PR) create severe risks that no one represents the urgent interests of small minorities.
Other measures include the deliberate over-representation of certain minorities, to ensure that they not only have voice, but also some real clout when decisions come to a vote. Other arrangements may focus on the composition of political party slates, for instance – as has been the case in Nepal - to secure a sufficient number of women within each party group in parliament.
Among the benefits of such arrangements, when properly crafted, is that they give voice and political influence to previously dominated groups, to ensure on-going recognition and concern for their sitution.
Some disadvantages also merit mention. One important concern is how to determine which of many groups need such representation in common bodies, and how to fine-tune the extent of over-representation, if any. Another challenge is to ensure that these measures do not entrench existing conflicts, or prevent solutions to new injustices. Thus there must be ways to revise lists of ‘deserving’ groups over time, as new injustices arise or are discovered. But this of course adds to the risk of manipulation. And arrangements must be prevented that merely buttress groups that already are powerful. A final concern is that some of those elected as representatives of these groups may not act in the groups’ best interests, partly because they themselves may well be among the more privileged segment of the minority.
Conclusion
These reflections have sought to illuminate some aspects of the opportunities open to the Constituent Assembly, when it seeks to include federal features in the new, human rights-respecting constitution.
Human rights protections combined with federal elements of Nepal’s new constitution must serve to prevent future domination, especially by the centres, over the many ethnic groups and castes. I have pointed to benefits and risks of four different federal elements culled from the European federal tradition: Constitutional and Political Territorial arrangements, Minority Rights, and systems of Minority Representation.
To select, fine tune and combine some of these federal features into a sustainable and just constitution that is recognizably federal is one of the important obligations of the Constitutional Assembly. It must braid a constitution that will protect and promote the best interests of the braid that is the Nepali people and peoples; a constitution that helps create a Nepal free from domination from all centres of power, central as well as regional. [Source: http://www.nepalnews.com/archive/2008/others/guestcolumn/nov/guest_columns_06.php]
(The writer is Director of Research and Professor of Political Philosophy, Norwegian Centre for Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of and can be reached at andreas.follesdal@nchr.uio.no)
The basic principle of federalism is to devolve the power from center to local. This is the central point of federal structure discourse. The concept is critically important for the development for several reasons. At a theoretical level also, federalism can not be questioned for a country like Nepal. Where the problem lies however is on designing the structure or finding an appropriate model of federalism suitable for a challenging socio-physical economies. To overcome such problems, we first need to understand what are important concepts of federalism itself. Next, understanding also needs to be developed on how such concepts can be employed in the context of Nepal. Unless we are clear about these issues, discussion on federalism can not be of much fruitful.
Here is an article written by Dr. Follesdal on Nepalese context. This article is short and give some brief conceptual explanation on federalism.
************************************************************************************
On Federalism, Ethnicity and Human Rights in Nepal
The Constituent Assemby must braid a constitution that will protect and promote the best interests of the braid that is the Nepali people and peoples; a constitution that helps create a Nepal free from domination from all centres of power, central as well as regional.
Andreas FollesdalBy Andreas Follesdal
One of the many intriguing and important tasks of the Nepal's Constituent Assemby concerns federalism. Not only must the CA write a constitution that secures equal dignity and respect for all Nepali citizens, regardless of ethnicity and caste, the voters also clearly supported parties that seek to create a federal Nepal. So the question is not whether Nepal should be a federal state, but rather what sort of federal state Nepal should be.
The task of the CA is now how to translate this idea of federalism into a constitution – the ‘operating system’ – of a democratic, human rights-respecting Nepal republic. For instance: Should the federal borders of Nepal reflect ethnicity and geography, as the Maoists urged? Or should the CA follow the CPN (UML) and Nepali Congress manifestos, and create provinces based on geography, natural resources, language, or culture? Indeed: how many provinces should there be? 11, as the Maoists called for? Should there be one united province for the Tarai, as the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum insist?
How can the CA’s choice of federal institutional design elements be faithful to the best interests of the Nepali people? This is an important challenge, since there are many different ways that the institutions of a state can be democratic, ensure human rights – and embody federal features. There are clearly no ‘best’ institutional blueprint for all states: that depends on the national histories and memories, geography, and cultures. And any assessment of appropriateness are most legitimately made by the informed and reflective citizenry themselves.
The following reflections by an ‘outsider’ is therefore limited to a reminder of four varieties of federal elements, combined with arguments in favor and against each drawn from an interpretation of other states’ experiences. Two of the four are territorial: Constitutional and Political. Two are non-territorial: Minority Rights, and Minority Representation. Some arguments and lessons may be helpful also for Nepal’s challenges.
Two features of the people – or rather peoples - of Nepal are especially salient for this discussion. The poet Madhav Prasad Ghimire said of the national poet Bhanubhakta Acharya (1814-1868) that he “braided the people of Nepal into a national string.” The metaphor of a braid is particularly helpful and appropriate in this context: Nepal firstly consists of very many different groups. Numbers vary, but Nepal is said to have well over 90 caste and ethnic nationalities, 70-90 languages, 9 religious groups, often overlapping. And secondly, members of these groups often live side by side: few if any ethnic groups are the sole inhabitants of any geographical area, and many castes and ethnic groups live fully dispersed among each other.
The Puzzle: If Federalism is the solution, what is the problem?
One helpful way to assess federal institutional alternatives is to explore why so many Nepali citizens and their political parties urged federalism. If they see this as the solution, what do they regard as the problem?
Many observers seem to agree that one reason for the calls for federalism was a wide spread perception that the central authorities had long dominated many of the other ethnic groups and castes of Nepal. Calls for federalism thus sought to convey that the power of the Centre must be constrained or removed, to end domination and to secure a more fair distribution of opportunities and living conditions. Human rights constraints and federal features have historically often been used for this very objective: to prevent domination by the centres.
European history of Federalism
A brief historical reminder helps identify four different federal features that the CA might draw from.
Johannes Althusius (1557-1630) is regarded as the “father of federalism” in Europe. Living in the German city Emden, he sought protection for his own Calvinist minority religion within Emden, and protection for the city itself. His group faced two sources of domination: from the ‘Local Center’ - the Lutheran provincial Lord -, and from the ‘Central Centre’: the Catholic Emperor. He argued that these central authorities should grant religious freedom to his and other groups, among peoples living side by side in the realm, to avoid violent upheavals. Two lessons are particulary relevant:
1) Federal thought has long been concerned to prevent domination from several power sources.
2) The history of federalism recognized several different means to combat domination, - not only territorial subdivisions. For instance local autonomy - immunity from interference by the center - with regard to religion. Another example is ‘consociational’ arrangements. There, different segments of a society, split along religious or ethnic lines, nevertheless cooperate by each having a share in the exercise of central powers.
Four Federal Features
Let us now consider four different institutional arrangements within this federal tradition. All of them can sometimes serve to reduce conflict and domination. This is partly because they reduce the need for complete agreement among individuals: people who disagree about some issues can instead agree to decide separately on these contested policies. And these arrangements can protect from interference and thus remove domination, at least in some circumstances.
Note also that all of them require attention to two central contested issues:
1) how to determine the composition of the sub-units, be they geographical or demograpic. In the case of territorial regions: where should the borders be drawn? In the case of ethnic or other group based division: who decides on the appropriate group divisions, and who decides contested cases of membership?
2) Which powers should these sub-units have: should they for instance have the final say over school curriculum, taxation, official language or holidays, land reform, agricultural policies, cultural subsidies, water management, and/or land reform?
1 Territorial Constitutional Federalism
In this version, the constitution divides the country into territorial regions, and grants some power to them, and some power to the centre. This is typical of federal states, such as the US, India, Germany.
The benefit of such entrenchment of a division of power is that it can reduce or remove fears that the centre will dominate the regions. However, note that other forms of domination over ethnic groups may remain, especially where the territorial borders fail to match those of ethnic groups. There are at least two cases relevant for Nepal: since there will be minorities within any area of Nepal, these will continue to risk domination from the ‘Local Centre’ where decisions will reflect the interests of the local majority. Thus Local Development Minister Dev Gurung has rejected calls for a separate province for the Terai, since that would infringe on rights of indigenous groups, and give some groups monopoly of power.
Secondly, this kind of arrangement does little to protect widely dispersed, greatly disadvantaged groups such as the Dalits. They will simply be subjected to many sources of domination, by each regional authority, rather than only by the central authorities in Kathmandu. Human rights protections will still constrain both local and central authorities, but this federal feature will not help the Dalits.
In short: Territorial Constitutional Federalism does not guarantee the end of domination of ethnic minorities, but may simply create more sites of ‘local’ domination in the various sub-units, especially when different ethnic groups and castes live intermingled.
Such constitutional federalism also has several disadvantages. The entrenched division of powers is by design difficult to change, but should not be completely out of reach, otherwise future challenges may be impossible to handle. Some also fear that this sort of arrangement may fuel calls for secession, though that risk may be alleviated when the regional authorities also enjoy a share of the central powers, when human rights generally are protected, etc. It may also hinder a shared ‘national identity.’ Finally, note that such arrangements may hinder equalization of living conditions across regions, since richer regions will question why they should take responsibility for the poorer areas.
2 Territorial Political Federalism: Decentralisation
An alternative territorial arrangement is one where the central parliament grants local authorities autonomy over specific issues. Such arrangements allows the local communities more control over matters that are important to them, and avoids the rigidity problems of constitutional entrenchments.
However, such arrangements may not provide quite as strong safeguards against future domination, since the central authorities may at any time withdraw the powers they have granted. And with the added possibilities of dynamic change of borders and allocation of powers comes the risk of political manipulation for inappropriate objectives. Finally, the ethnic and other minorities that live within each region face similar risks of domination under this system as they face in a unified state with centralized power. The only difference is that domination is now perpetrated by a regional majority.
We now consider two ‘non-territorial’ federal features that may reduce domination of ethnic groups. They seek to give various ethnic groups more protection, or more power – without tying these privileges to a specific territory.
3 Nonterritorial Minority Rights
A third institutional arrangement is what Althusius urged for his own religious group: collective rights and other human rights to groups who otherwise face risks of domination, be it freedom from interference or more substantive autonomy. These rights can typically concern matters of religion, language, culture, education or even some forms of taxation. We find expression of some such rights in ILO Convention number 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples. Other such rights may include measures of ‘reverse discrimination’ etc, to alleviate the impact of past and present injustice and oppression.
A benefit of such arrangements is that they can greatly help minorities who live geographically dispersed or intermingled with other groups.
Yet there are also some drawbacks. For instance, the appropriate set of rights may have to be carefully tailored to the specific needs and histories of each group, and a too extensive system of such special rights may hinder a national sense of unity and solidarity. Many also point to the risks such special rights can pose to vulnerable persons within the minority. For instance, special care must be taken to protect women from harmful elements of some traditional cultures and practices. Many human rights can provide some safeguard against these sources of domination.
Other problems arise for efforts to alleviate past injustice: many supportive measures, extra resources etc will tend to benefit the most privileged members of disadvantaged groups, rather than the worst off members. It may also be important to have clear targets for when to end such measures. Insofar as membership criteria and benefits is a matter of political debate there is obviously the risk of manipulation: scarce resources may not reach those ethnic groups and castes, and especially those members thereof, whose claims are most urgent.
4 Nonterritorial Minority Representation
The fourth kind of arrangement grants groups representation in the bodies that make common decisions. One case is the consociational system mentioned above, where each social group is represented, and may even enjoy veto over common decisions.
Mechanisms may include quotas or designated seats in legislatures for specified minorities. These arrangements may be especially important in ‘first-past-the-post’ systems, but also systems with Proportional Representation (PR) create severe risks that no one represents the urgent interests of small minorities.
Other measures include the deliberate over-representation of certain minorities, to ensure that they not only have voice, but also some real clout when decisions come to a vote. Other arrangements may focus on the composition of political party slates, for instance – as has been the case in Nepal - to secure a sufficient number of women within each party group in parliament.
Among the benefits of such arrangements, when properly crafted, is that they give voice and political influence to previously dominated groups, to ensure on-going recognition and concern for their sitution.
Some disadvantages also merit mention. One important concern is how to determine which of many groups need such representation in common bodies, and how to fine-tune the extent of over-representation, if any. Another challenge is to ensure that these measures do not entrench existing conflicts, or prevent solutions to new injustices. Thus there must be ways to revise lists of ‘deserving’ groups over time, as new injustices arise or are discovered. But this of course adds to the risk of manipulation. And arrangements must be prevented that merely buttress groups that already are powerful. A final concern is that some of those elected as representatives of these groups may not act in the groups’ best interests, partly because they themselves may well be among the more privileged segment of the minority.
Conclusion
These reflections have sought to illuminate some aspects of the opportunities open to the Constituent Assembly, when it seeks to include federal features in the new, human rights-respecting constitution.
Human rights protections combined with federal elements of Nepal’s new constitution must serve to prevent future domination, especially by the centres, over the many ethnic groups and castes. I have pointed to benefits and risks of four different federal elements culled from the European federal tradition: Constitutional and Political Territorial arrangements, Minority Rights, and systems of Minority Representation.
To select, fine tune and combine some of these federal features into a sustainable and just constitution that is recognizably federal is one of the important obligations of the Constitutional Assembly. It must braid a constitution that will protect and promote the best interests of the braid that is the Nepali people and peoples; a constitution that helps create a Nepal free from domination from all centres of power, central as well as regional. [Source: http://www.nepalnews.com/archive/2008/others/guestcolumn/nov/guest_columns_06.php]
(The writer is Director of Research and Professor of Political Philosophy, Norwegian Centre for Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of and can be reached at andreas.follesdal@nchr.uio.no)
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Economic Transformation is the key
Economic Transformation is the Key!
Nepal needs an economic revolution. Current government has rightly made economic revolution as one of its central goal. But so did past governments. Past experience is a good testimony for Nepal that mere political rhetoric and paper planning is not enough. Where previous governments missed opportunity to realize their goal was on action! This is not to say that they did not work; instead this is to say that the ferocity that was needed in actions to change Nepal was just not enough. Its consequence was Maoists-led political upheaval and eventual collapse of monarchy from Nepal. This political change occurred in a huge cost – nearly 15,000 deaths and billions of dollars of economic loss. Nepal is sure to suffer with this trauma for several years to come.
There is no benefit however in pondering about the great loss Nepalese have made during this time period. We need to move on as citizen and make some informed changes that will change the fundamental structure of our society. The first and foremost is economic change. This is the key for sustainable peace. That is, to prevent another future rebellion activity and protect the country from human and economic loss, living standard of the people must be changed. Common people, as the historical trend shows, do not really care about who rules the government. What they care is how adequately they can provide health, education, and security (financial as well as safety) to their families. No political ideology makes any real difference on people’s perception if people are provided with an environment to live a quality life.
Budget 2008/2009 does make some good campaigns for economic change. There however are two aspects that government needs to be reminded about to materialize such campaigns. First is about the enforcement of policies/plans. It is perhaps the most important for this government to make sure that the outlined policies are effectively implemented. With a crisis of effective organization structure and service delivery mechanism, current government surely faces a huge challenge on effective actions. How resources are flowed from center to regions and how efficiently these resources are used will play critical role in attaining financial revolution. Second, how government promotes economic growth in the country will make a significant implication towards the economic change. While it is too early to make any comment, it generally appears that country is not quite aggressive on growth as it is for rural development. Rural development is important, and must be a key goal in a country like Nepal where 80% of people live. But what is also important to understand is that a large number of rural populations will eventually migrate in urban areas. In fact, by 2030, nearly 40% of rural population is projected to be in urban areas. This suggests that “growth” should not be a side-tracked project. Instead, growth oriented policies must go hand in hand (may be more aggressively) than the subsistence-oriented policies.
Building efficient service delivery and effective growth policies therefore are the most important steps for Nepal’s economic transformation. These two steps can significantly change the way economic system functions in Nepal. Various strategies can be adopted to realize these two steps. We invite readers of this blog to discuss on the possible ways to about achieving these two steps in the best possible ways.
Nepal needs an economic revolution. Current government has rightly made economic revolution as one of its central goal. But so did past governments. Past experience is a good testimony for Nepal that mere political rhetoric and paper planning is not enough. Where previous governments missed opportunity to realize their goal was on action! This is not to say that they did not work; instead this is to say that the ferocity that was needed in actions to change Nepal was just not enough. Its consequence was Maoists-led political upheaval and eventual collapse of monarchy from Nepal. This political change occurred in a huge cost – nearly 15,000 deaths and billions of dollars of economic loss. Nepal is sure to suffer with this trauma for several years to come.
There is no benefit however in pondering about the great loss Nepalese have made during this time period. We need to move on as citizen and make some informed changes that will change the fundamental structure of our society. The first and foremost is economic change. This is the key for sustainable peace. That is, to prevent another future rebellion activity and protect the country from human and economic loss, living standard of the people must be changed. Common people, as the historical trend shows, do not really care about who rules the government. What they care is how adequately they can provide health, education, and security (financial as well as safety) to their families. No political ideology makes any real difference on people’s perception if people are provided with an environment to live a quality life.
Budget 2008/2009 does make some good campaigns for economic change. There however are two aspects that government needs to be reminded about to materialize such campaigns. First is about the enforcement of policies/plans. It is perhaps the most important for this government to make sure that the outlined policies are effectively implemented. With a crisis of effective organization structure and service delivery mechanism, current government surely faces a huge challenge on effective actions. How resources are flowed from center to regions and how efficiently these resources are used will play critical role in attaining financial revolution. Second, how government promotes economic growth in the country will make a significant implication towards the economic change. While it is too early to make any comment, it generally appears that country is not quite aggressive on growth as it is for rural development. Rural development is important, and must be a key goal in a country like Nepal where 80% of people live. But what is also important to understand is that a large number of rural populations will eventually migrate in urban areas. In fact, by 2030, nearly 40% of rural population is projected to be in urban areas. This suggests that “growth” should not be a side-tracked project. Instead, growth oriented policies must go hand in hand (may be more aggressively) than the subsistence-oriented policies.
Building efficient service delivery and effective growth policies therefore are the most important steps for Nepal’s economic transformation. These two steps can significantly change the way economic system functions in Nepal. Various strategies can be adopted to realize these two steps. We invite readers of this blog to discuss on the possible ways to about achieving these two steps in the best possible ways.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Nepal can learn lessons from Barack Obama's Success
What message Barack Obama’s win gives to Nepal?
Barack Obama, an unknown figure not only to the world but even within the United States until the last half a decade, has secured an impressive win to be the 44th president of the United States of America. Obama’s winning is historical in many regards. He is the first African American to be elected as a Commander in Chief of the most powerful and developed country on this planet. In a country where racism is still rampant, a black president elect was something unthinkable until fairly recently. Obama’s win has changed that entire paradigm.
There could be many direct and indirect policy level influences that may come with Obama’s presidency through out the world. Nepal will not remain aloof with such influence. While we will have to wait what kind and level of influence will come to Nepal, at this point, what is probably the most important is to recognize that social discriminatory institutions such as caste, age, race etc are meaningless to define an individual’s potentiality if appropriate education, training, and support are provided to individuals by the society. Barack Obama is the role model for many young people not only in the US but also in the countries such as Nepal. If a member of black community--which fought for basic civil rights just fifty years ago-- can make a president, it should be the aim of Nepal to provide adequate environment to ensure that a child even if born in a disadvantaged and marginalized community can aspire to be the president or prime-minister of the country. This is probably the most important lesson that Nepal can learn from Obama’s victory.
Barack Obama, an unknown figure not only to the world but even within the United States until the last half a decade, has secured an impressive win to be the 44th president of the United States of America. Obama’s winning is historical in many regards. He is the first African American to be elected as a Commander in Chief of the most powerful and developed country on this planet. In a country where racism is still rampant, a black president elect was something unthinkable until fairly recently. Obama’s win has changed that entire paradigm.
There could be many direct and indirect policy level influences that may come with Obama’s presidency through out the world. Nepal will not remain aloof with such influence. While we will have to wait what kind and level of influence will come to Nepal, at this point, what is probably the most important is to recognize that social discriminatory institutions such as caste, age, race etc are meaningless to define an individual’s potentiality if appropriate education, training, and support are provided to individuals by the society. Barack Obama is the role model for many young people not only in the US but also in the countries such as Nepal. If a member of black community--which fought for basic civil rights just fifty years ago-- can make a president, it should be the aim of Nepal to provide adequate environment to ensure that a child even if born in a disadvantaged and marginalized community can aspire to be the president or prime-minister of the country. This is probably the most important lesson that Nepal can learn from Obama’s victory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)