Federalism New Exercise In Nepalese Polity

Dr. Panna Kaji Amatya

Federalism is a prominent system of government emerging in the world today. It accounts for more than one half of the world?s territory and population. It is increasingly and favourably being discussed and debated more and more in many a country, much more so in culturally, racially, linguistically, religiously and crisis-prone diverse and plural countries like Nepal. A state once federated is rarely found to break up. On the contrary, there are many examples of unitary states either disappearing or splitting.

National aspirations

As a unitary Nepal fails to meet the broad national aspirations, centrifugal forces are growing as a consequence of that failure. So, a nation-wide demand is being made to end the exploitive unitary system and set up a federal system in Nepal. As a result of the new awakening of the various ethnic, racial, religious, indigenous, excluded, marginalised and language communities scattered across the country, the people, during the Second Movement launched for the re-restoration of democracy in 2006, revolted against the excessive centralisation of power and their exclusion from sharing of power for an intolerably long time.That the unitary system, if imposed and continued as in the past, will sure enough augur ill for the nation has been widely talked about. However, sadly enough, the political parties and their leaders have no clear-cut agenda in this regard. They have merely included a non-committal provision in the Interim Constitution, which says: ?The Constituent Assembly will decide on the nature of the federal system.?

The failure of the rulers to clearly plant the seeds of federation in the Interim Constitution of Nepal roused the excluded and marginalised people to exasperation, frustration and fury. They felt that they had been badly done by. It was only in the wake of the paralysing movement by them, particularly in the Terai, that the coalition government of the seven political parties and the CPN-Maoists were forced to amend the Interim Constitution towards their ?commitment? to establish a federal polity in Nepal through the constitution to be made by the Constituent Assembly. Now, the question naturally arises: ?What does federalism mean? Defining federalism is a very difficult task, for this difficulty is heightened by the wide functional differences witnessed in the various federally structured polities in the world and by big gaps between theory and practice of federalism. Thus, federalism has become different things to different persons. Simply put, federalism is a system of government in which power is divided by a written and relatively rigid constitution between a central, national or federal government and regional, provincial or state governments. Under it, national and state governments are, more or less, equally powerful.

Federalism, understood so, refers to a political system characterised by two levels of government, with each deriving its power and functions from a supreme authority which is not controlled by either level and which, in turn, controls both the levels. That authority is the constitution of the union. The generally recognised principle of federalism is that there is the explicit division of powers between the national and regional governments. Whatever concerns the nation as a whole or whatever is primarily of common interest is under the control of the national government, and all other matters which are not concerned with the centre are in the domain of the respective regional governments, each level of government being coordinate and independent. If looked at federation as preached and practised in the United States, the best example of a federal government, the powers to be exercised by the national government and regional governments are specified. The residuary powers are left to the latter, which contrasts with countries like Canada and India where the residue is left to the national governments.

Equally important in this regard is the question ?Why is a federation formed?? For the formation of a federation, K. C. Wheare affirms, there are some prerequisites such as the desire of the regional units to be under a union and the desire to retain or establish independent regional governments. If one follows him further, other factors that lead to the federation are a sense of military insecurity and the consequent need for common defence; a desire to be independent of foreign powers; anticipation of economic advantage; geographical proximity; and similarity of political institutions. Traditionally, such a federal state is formed by an association of independent states federating themselves for some common purposes. Such practice was in existence in ancient Greece. The United States is the first modern country to constitutionally introduce federalism. It is the best model for other countries adopting this system or willing to adopt it. The US federalism is the most successful experiment in the community of nations. Most of the federal polities took inspiration from this model though they had to adjust and modify this system in accordance with their own national requirements. However, it has become a dynamic process rather than a static concept. US federalism has undergone remarkable changes in its nature and characteristics, the most important among them being the progressively increasing power of the national government.

In the case of the USA and Switzerland, the confederation preceded the federation. Today it cannot be properly understood on the basis of such traditional approach to federation, despite the relevance of its views and contention, and contribution to the development of the process of federation. On the other hand, the Nepalese federation to be instituted will be a different process similar to that of Spain and Belgium. In the USA and Switzerland, the constituent states become the federating units, but in Nepal, the state itself, till now all-powerful, independent, sovereign, centralised and unitary, will create its federating units and make a federal state there. The federation may be an effective means for the preservation and promotion of the interests of the geographically, socially, economically and politically disadvantaged, excluded and marginalised people. It also gives them opportunities to get themselves organised to assert their rights and contribute to the development of the nation and its politics. Therefore, arguments that the federation is expensive and complicated should by no means discourage the people from shying away from forming it. Its advantages are more worth than its disadvantages.

There is no reason to ignore and criticise it simply because it may be incongruous with the tradition. Judging by what unitary Nepal has been doing till recently, one may conclude that the unitary system is not a better system for Nepal or for good governance. In reality, federation means more governance throughout the country through constituent units and less government from the centre.Therefore, the people should by all means and to the extent possible keep debates going on regarding the theory and practice of federalism, particularly with regard to the nature of the federal structure in Nepal. The most important factor, which should never be ignored, is the adoption of the co-operative model of federation in contrast to the classical ?dualistic? model under which the powers of the national and regional governments are constitutionally distributed on the basis of localism vs. centrism notion. The co-operative model implies the existence of two levels of governments, both of which are equal partners, not equal rivals, with one government not being subordinate to the other.

Visionary leaders

However, merely talking about federalism continuously and harping on the same string is not enough. The initiation of a federal polity entails the presence of leaders who have the vision and mission to translate it into reality. Federalism to be successful requires national leaders, not mere leaders of the political parties or just sectional leaders recognised by only their cronies as we see it today. It is not wide off the mark if one says that under the unitary system there have always been governments by cronyism since the creation of modern Nepal. One may reasonably hope that federalism, once introduced, will give birth to the emergence of true national leaders with a vision of a better Nepal. This is the crying need of Nepal.

Source: The Rising Nepal, May 7, 2007