State restructuring: A case for policy choice

Bishwambher Pyakuryal

Nepal is not the only country that faces challenges of restructuring the state. Over the last decade, more than 150,000 large enterprises in 27 transition countries have encountered such revolutionary changes in their political and economic environments. Restructuring is both the quantitative and qualitative change in socio-political, cultural and economic structures. It is a challenging task since restructuring is also linked to globalisation, characterised as the internationalisation of socio-economic phenomenon.The ideal case for restructuring should involve distinct sequencing. The initial question is the forces and constraints for change — the Why? Secondly, it is the paradigm shift required — the What. Thirdly, it is the implementation process — the How, and finally, it is the problems awaiting solution — What is next? Nepal’s restructuring should revolve around these sequences.

The global experience has shown that the escalation of risk is higher if peace is temporarily restored through conflict prevention without simultaneously focusing on economic reforms. Even accelerated growth is meaningful only when it is sustained. The possibility of sustaining growth arises when political reform is backed by socio-economic adjustments. This is necessary since it takes time to transform fragile institutions with illegitimate power structures into peacetime institutions that intend to promote socio-economic interactions among all the actors of development. The vulnerability of externally orchestrated state restructuring should be assessed, especially with regard to the varying capacities of state systems to cope with regional and global forces.

Studies have shown that the fact that the majority of the people do not bother to vote was the reflection of their inability to influence decisions. In Nepal, a field-based study reveals that the government was too far to understand people’s everyday life. People’s hardships were not realised even after the ceasefire. The local communities and vulnerable groups were not included in the decision-making institutions. This is the reason why the majority of the affected communities believe that it is not possible to influence the government and the parties without exerting unconstitutional methods. The post-conflict Nepal should guarantee uninterrupted power of the people to exercise their authority without fear. This is based on the core concept of power that power can change and expand. Power and power relationship can change indicating that if power does not change, empowerment is not possible. Establishing such system may avoid the possibility of today’s majority remaining as tomorrow’s majority.

Accommodating social, economic and political indicators into a composite index of empowerment develops Nepal’s human empowerment index. Out of the three, the political empowerment index is 0.406, which is the highest compared to the other two. As political empowerment has not rescued the people from wider income inequality, there is a risk to interpret higher voter turnout and candidacies per seat in local election as the only indicator of overall development. The restructuring under the proposed federal structure should, therefore, consider recognising local preferences, needs and constraints by accommodating socio-economic and political factors. The analysis of such inter-linkages and execution of interdisciplinary policies is important to restructure conventional assumptions. The policy under federalism should seek to find out what is that justifiable extent of inequality that the individuals would accept.

Most Janajatis and Dalits fall below national average and well below the Brahmins, Chhetris and Newars. Although some Janajatis such as Gurungs, Magars, Rais , Sherpas and Thankali are better off in terms of education and income, but less empowered in joining the civil service. An assessment of inequality and formulation of policies should be the priority. The big challenge is the institutional reforms that will have measurable effects on improving the status of the target populations. Promoting civil self-governance is the fundamental form of democracy. The objective of civil self-governance is to enhance local decision-making and extend range of services to strengthen the future of local democracy. New electoral arrangements are needed for making it easier to vote locally and restructure the ways in which local elected bodies operate. The community should be aware about who is making decisions.Democracy should not be aligned with a single indicator. For the economists, if maintaining macro-economic stability was possible through democracy, the question is why democracy could not then reduce poverty and inequality? Federalism should, therefore, be designed to achieve a greater degree of integration based on a combination of self-rule and shared-rule to justify the continuation of agreed principles of democracy.

Source: The Himalayan Times, May 7, 2007