Are we prepared against Ebola?

Nearly 932 people have already died in West Africa since the Ebola outbreak about six months ago. As of now, four countries in particular- Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea, and Nigeria- have been hit hard by the virus, and a some citizens of USA, Saudi Arabia, and Spain are also inflicted (International Business Times). There is no reason to believe that the virus won’t travel to South Asia and Nepal eventually.

According to WHO, Ebola transmits through close contact with the blood or other bodily fluids. It is believed to have inflicted human via infected animals (monkeys, chimpanzees etc.). Ebola has the case fatality rate of 90%. Initial symptoms of the disease are fever, weakness, headache followed by diarrhea, vomiting, etc. eventually leading to liver and kidney failure. Someone infected with Ebola virus may take 2-21 days to show up the symptoms (WHO).

Times of India recently reported that there are nearly 45,000 Indians living in Ebola affected countries (Times of India). If the virus outbreak persists and increases further, many of them may return back to India. Already a certain number of Indians working in Liberia are planning to return back to India. As such Indian government has planned various precautionary measures such as airport screening, self-disclosure upon arrival, airport health facilities in the key airports where people from Africa likely come in.

Small number of Nepalese are currently living in the Ebola affected countries in West Africa mainly for the UN peace-keeping work. So far there is no record of any Nepali citizen being affected by the virus (The Himalayan Times). As much as this is a good news, it is equally important for the government to be prepared in case if the unexpected happens. Beside, given a large number of Indian populations living in West Africa, and their frequent travel between India and African countries, the possibility of Ebola coming to India and subsequently to Nepal cannot be avoided altogether.

It is a high time that the Ministry of Health (MoH) alerts all of its health systems to pay especial attention to any potential Ebola outbreak. Arrangements also need to be made at the airport and other immigration points to monitor health of the foreigners and Nepalese entering to Nepal, particularly those coming from Africa. But most of all, MoH should proactively initiate discussions on Ebola prevention and control with other relevant line ministries and departments as appropriate, and swiftly develop an appropriate strategy and implement it in order to systematically deal with the potential outbreak of the virus in Nepal.

Leverage the Modi Momentum: Few Immediate Steps

Modi’s recent trip to Nepal has been hailed by both Nepali and Indian communities as a new hope for Nepal India relations and Nepal’s development. The renewed mutual interest and appreciation between the two countries is exactly what was needed for Nepal at this time to minimize the angst among certain Nepalese populations against the historical legacy of Indian foreign policy toward Nepal. Time will tell whether or not the renewed aspirations and hopes will translate into actions. What is noteworthy right now is the hope an Indian leader has been able create among the Nepalese people that no other leader was able to in the recent history.

 

Modi’s visit has positively fueled the underlying relationship between Nepal and India. Gallup poll 2011 found that nearly 80% Nepalese had positive opinions about India (http://www.gallup.com/poll/150143/Nepalese-Pakistan-South-Asia-Greatest-Security-Threat.aspx), despite all the suspicions and even negative discourse about India that goes into every day conversation especially among the independent scholars, thinkers, intellectuals, and certain left wingers. The under-current warmth Nepalese at large have toward India is because of the social and cultural lines that often cut across between the two countries. This relationship is Nepal’s strength as well as weakness, which Modi rightly recognized and quickly turned it into affection through political, religious and personal sentiments. He did not only emphasize the social cultural aspects, but also backed his interest of prosper Nepal by offering $1 billion new credit line assistance for HIT (Highway, information technology, and transmission) projects.
 

Nepalese political leaders should use and leverage the steps set forth by Modi. They should also truly believe that, like Modi, a leader can indeed change peoples’ perception, turn a wrong into a right, and recharge the populations with thoughtful engagements. But they should also understand that all of this of course cannot happen without a careful thinking, proper homework, and planning. So going fward the leaders should be prepared themselves with rigorous homework and targeted efforts to negotiate with the rest of the Modi’s administration on various development agenda including highway development, information technology, and electricity transmission.
 

Above all, Nepalese prime minister should not undermine his (his position’s) ability to make a change in the way people think and feel about their leaders and political systems. Feelings and perceptions are important, as they often determine peoples’ actions. So perhaps one of the important steps Nepalese prime minister can take right now is to come to the national television and give a quick roundup of Modi’s visit, outcomes of the visit, his impressions, and the hopes he has for Nepal. This will only help Nepalese people to believe that their feelings are not in hollow and are equally shared by their government, and the chief of the government is committed to use the momentum for the greater good of country men and women.
 

Similarly, Nepalese policy makers and politicians should properly plan and prioritize the projects that they would like to seek financial and technical assistance from India. This is a high time that they do this right, and test Modi’s largesse. Remember this: Modi has all the good reasons to do good in neighboring countries especially in nepal, so as to balance the great political and economic influence China is pushing from the north, secure India's borders from rather hostile neighbors, benefit from Nepal's water and electricity potentials, and of course the Pashupatinath! Nepalese leadership should recognize this, and leverage the newly energized relationship for country’s greater socio-economic development.

District Specific Governance Indicators- Good Initiative

Today's MYREPUBLICA has published a brief news about the district-wise governance ranking in Nepal. According to the news, the ranking was carried out based on three main criteria-- utilization of budget, transparency, and good governance. Bhaktapur District Development Committee (DDC), which was in the fifth position last year (2012), has topped the list of 74 districts this year, resulting to 30% raise in development budget to be coming to DDC this year (2013).

This is an incredible news to the Bhaktapur DDC and local people. Equally impressive to me is the continuation of the process of governance assessment and ranking of the districts. This could indeed be an important tool to increase governance-competition among the districts, exchange knowledge and good practices between the districts, reduce corruption, empower people, and ultimately help develop the districts. For this to happen, the rating methodology needs to be clear and unbiased; and the outcome (the report) needs to be widely marketed/disseminated so it receives better visibility by both the public and government agencies.

While I am yet to read the "Performance Report" before making any remarks on the methodology and results, the MYREPUBLICA news (see below) however is not very helpful to visualize the methods and processes employed preparing the report. For example, the news does not give us any information about who conducted the study and what are the specific indicators of criteria such as utilization of budget, transparency and good governance. Perhaps, a better marketing/dissemination of the report, as discussed above, could address issues like these.

Anyhow, a big congratulations to Bhaktapur DDC and all the Bhaktapureans! Moving forward, it would be very helpful if the DDC could write some good practice notes/stories on its governance experiences and disclose them in publicly available avenues (e.g. website) so that other districts could learn from Bhaktapur. 

***********************
Bhaktapur leads others in good governance UPENDRA LAMICHHANE BHAKTAPUR, July 18:

Bhaktapur has come ahead of other 74 districts in terms of utilization of budget, transparency and good governance. Bhaktapur District Development Committee scored 83 in performance assessment report released on Monday. Interestingly, Dhankuta and Sindhupalchowk took second and third positions with 82 and 79 points respectively. Local Development Officer of Bhaktapur Rajendra Kumar KC attributed the achievement to the entire DDC team for maintaining financial discipline and prioritizing development activities. This achievement has won Bhaktapur an additional 30 percent development budget. “We performed our duty honestly. We did our best to implement the welfare scheme meant for the poor. Transparency and proper utilization of budget helped us leave other districts behind in performance assessment,” KC said. Last year, Bhaktapur had secured fifth position in the assessment. The work evaluation of the local bodies was prepared on the basis of financial management, financial resource mobilization, communication and transparency, monitoring and evaluation, among others. “We carried out all development works in coordination with consumers committees. This turned out to be effective,” said KC. “We are happy that we could use the budget allocated to women and children quite effectively,” he said. Meanwhile, Laxmidevi Humagain, monitoring and administrative officer of DDC, stated that the success has added greater responsibility on their shoulders. “The news has made us proud. But this has added more responsibility on our shoulders,” she said. “We need to be very careful to maintain our success,” Humagain added.

Community Consultation -- An Important Tool for Local Democratic Governance

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).

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.

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

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.