Sustainability of Federalism in Nepal

Shirish Bhat

Abstract

Ethnic, linguistic, racial and religious conflicts have become the dominant issues facing the world order today. Nepal is not an exception. While many Nepalese politicians look on federalism enthusiastically and involve themselves profoundly on the process, many others are in ferment over the federal idea. Federalism provides no “one size fits all” type of solution. Each Country has to examine and adopt arrangements conducive and suitable for individual needs. Nepal too needs to explore the federal idea intensively and fully before deciding whether to accept or reject it or adopt it with appropriate innovation. We need to explore the federal idea and have an informed debate about its pros and cons and also on deciding whether we adopt or reject it.

Federalism

To date, many countries in the world including Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Canada, Comoros, Ethiopia, Germany, India, Malaysia, Mexico, The federated states of Micronesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, St. Kitts and Nevis, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, United States of America, and Venezuela have federal and/or quasi-federal structures of government. Though federal, none of these countries share exactly the same system. Each country has different administrative arrangements and internal structures. They also vary greatly in size. Russia has republics and many types of regions within; India has states and union territories; Switzerland has cantons while Germany and Austria have landers. Belgium has three regions and three cultural communities while Spain has autonomous regions; the USA has states, unincorporated territories and Native American domestic dependent nations. Canada has provinces, territories and aboriginal organizations. Venezuela has states, territories, federal dependencies.

The proponents of federalism argue that adopting it will strengthen unity and territorial integrity. Switzerland, India, Malaysia, Belgium, Germany, Spain etc are cited as examples. But it cannot be denied that federalism has failed to prevent secession too. The disintegration of Soviet Union and Yugoslavia are well - known examples. The Malaysia - Singapore and Pakistan - Bangladesh splits in the past as well as modern break-ups of Czech and Slovakia, Serbia and Montenegro are also lessons. In Canada, separatism flourished in Quebec despite federalism. Britain devolved power to Scotland and Wales but secessionism seems to have gained ground there. Nigerian federalism did not prevent the Biafran civil war. There are, however, many nuances to take into account when analyzing the countries in question.

Current Political Shift in Nepal

Ideas cannot be ‘killed’; these can only be defeated by greater or better ideas. Another truism is no force can stop an idea whose time has come. Nepal can be a perfect example of this truism.
A recent policy shift of a major political party, Nepali Congress, from ‘multiparty democracy and constitutional monarchy’ to ‘federal democratic republic’ has created ripples in fluid politics of Nepal. Now, it seems supporters of federalism have increased in Nepal. The main supporters of the federalism are the Maoists and other communist parties. But none of them have started open and meaningful discussions for and against the system they want establish. There are both supporting and opposing arguments to federalism; however, the real issue is the desirability and sustainability of a federal set-up in a small and landlocked country which is diverse both religiously and ethnically. Many people think that in Nepal’s deeply polarized society, federalism can be worse. At one end there are the “unitarists” who are adamant that the unitary structure of the country should not be changed. At the other end are the “federalist” who want the country to make several “autonomous states with right to self-determination.” On this ground, one sees the federalism as a conspiracy to break up the nation while the other views it as a quest for “new Nepal.”

Can Federalism Bring Peace in Nepal?

Many questions raised by opposing to federalism are: can it bring lasting peace? Can it save our territorial integrity? Can it save our “unity in diversity”? Can it save our ages-long tradition of tolerance, harmony and brotherhood? As all the political leaders and interest groups haven’t done enough exercise or enough study on these questions and there has not been proper explanation on the suitability of federalism to the ordinary citizens, the answer is still uncertain. Many proponents of federalism may argue that a utopian devolution mechanism will cause things to happen in favor of bringing peace. But the causal connection is too remote to rely on. The bitter reality is that there can never be any practical devolution unit/mechanism/degree that all stakeholders can agree upon. Suppose a federal structure was put in place; then what? If the Maoist armed forces continue to remain thereafter, many fear a jobless army can be more dangerous. More complex issues exist about the police force. Therefore, federalism may not bring peace. For peace to hold, firstly, unlawful armed groups should be disarmed and lawful armed groups should uphold the law. Above all, rule of law and total end of impunity can secure us from socioeconomic disaster and political instability so deeply rooted in the nation.

Is Federalism a Sustainable Solution for Nepal?

The international communities (it is said) pressurize the political parties and the government to agree to a federal set-up, the question arises how sustainable would it be? Assuming a federal solution is put in place after a lot of haggling, pressurizing, etc. If it cannot bring about economic and political betterment in tangible proportions, the opposing forces will amass votes to bust it and that’s exactly what they will do when elected. Therefore, federal systems will not be able to be sustained unless they can add sizable amount of value to the aspirations of the majority. It is regrettable that most ‘political solutions’ disregard the aspirations of the majority in our country. It is apparent in Nepal that most of the political leaders and their ‘political solutions’ are guided by foreigners, specifically Indians. Moreover, it is very unlikely that the international community suppress the opposing forces forever and they continue to sustain the fragile ‘yes’ vote in favor of it.

Economics of Federalism and Conflicts over Water Resources

Who should benefit from the economic benefits of the natural resources? Should it be the residents in these regions or the nation as a whole? These are the questions that can cripple any federal set-up. Regional leaders and national leaders will have widely opposing views. It is easy to say the whole country will eventually benefit, but practically it is very difficult as evidenced from around the world. Matters will get even worse if foreign parties enter the fray, which is very likely to happen. A classic example on conflict over water resources is the Murray- Darling Basin development program of the Australian federal government. The basin drains roughly three-quarters of New South Wales, half of Victoria, a substantial portion of southern Queensland, and a small part of eastern South Australia The basin development program is not supported by states amidst a severe drought that has hit Australia. Victoria has repeatedly and decisively declined to cooperate as it has enough water resources. Nepal is not too far away in getting into such inter-region conflict once it is federalized. It will be unimaginably chaotic in a federal set-up and the army will have to be called-in to settle the matter given the fact that water is as important as gold in the dry zone. Prolonged and persistent conflicts can take a heavy toll and things will surely escalate when political forces interplay with them.

Diplomacy

Should the regions be allowed to formulate their diplomatic priorities or should they follow the central government? If they do not have such powers, the regions will surely demand it. It is no secret that Nepali Congress wants much closer ties with India, USA, Japan, and UK. Maoists want closer ties with China, North Korea, and Cuba. Other communist parties want to be closer with socialist countries around the world. Hindus want closer link with India, similarly Muslims would want closer link-ups with the Islamic world. These situations would heighten diplomatic importance to the various regions. Apart from obvious conflicting interests, how can Indian interest, for example, be managed by the central government and the regions? These conflicting interests may lead the nation into diplomatic anarchy under federalism. On the other hand, if the regions’ rights to diplomatic interests are curtailed, would federalism achieve its desired targets?

The Risk of Outside Interferers

Another big risk for the country and the regions is the risk of heightened outside interference.

NGOs and even the UN may run their own zones within some regions. In the absence of an acceptable regulator to both the regional and the central governments, these issues are likely to take the centre stage in any federal setting in Nepal. A ‘racial-federalism’ can be considered much more dangerous than federalism itself in Nepal. This doesn’t sound well but that’s exactly what most politicians in favor of federalism demand. A separate Muslim unit within the Hindu territory? Separate ‘Pahaadee’ unit within ‘Madhesi’ area? ‘Rai/Limbu’ area within ‘Newari’ territory? How ridiculously racial? We are likely to fall into a bigger ‘ethnic’ trap if we try to solve the ‘ethnic’ conflict by federalism. We should be moving in a different direction that can integrate the ethnic groups. We don’t differentiate ethnic celebrations, ethnic foodstuff and ethnic attire. We need our fellow citizens who run them to live and thrive in our nation among……

Final Remarks

Ethnic, linguistic, racial and religious conflicts have become the dominant issue facing the world order today. Wars after 1945 have been as much within countries as between them, with disastrous consequences for peace and security. While many Nepalese politicians (not silent majority of Nepalese people) in Nepal look on federalism enthusiastically and involve themselves profoundly on the process, the rest of the world is in ferment over the federal idea. There was a time when federalism was seen as the ideal remedy for many of the world’s political maladies. It was perceived as the universal device to achieve unity in diversity. Experience has shown that this is not necessarily true in all situations.

Federalism provides no “one size fits all” type of solution. Each Country has to examine and adopt arrangements conducive and suitable for individual needs. Nepal too needs to explore the federal idea intensively and fully before deciding whether to accept or reject it or adopt it with appropriate innovation. The federal idea is dynamic and constantly evolving. What we in Nepal need to do is to explore the federal idea and have an informed debate about its pros and cons and also on deciding whether we adopt or reject it.

Federalism will create new and never ending conflicts and confrontations on the issues of:
# Fixation and safeguarding of borders between states.
# Distribution and utilization of natural resources
# Rights to majority and minority in political, racial, religious, cultural issues (we should remember ill-fated Bhutanese Refugees in Nepal); Madhesi and Pahadi; backward and forward etc.
# Unlimited and unbearable economic burden to the nation ( for example, expenditure to one federal govt and ten state govts; one pm and ten chief ministers; one president and ten governors, one federal parliament and ten state parliaments etc …..)
Nepal, small in size and population, can be managed and governed by inclusive, constructive and cooperative system of representation. Let many ideas play. Let different parties contest and compete with a spirit of “rule of the games.” Let the sovereign people decide freely. Decentralization of power to the local governments with zero interference of the center can make a magic change. Living peace, political stability and the rule of law (good governance) are the basic conditions to flourish and strengthen democracy. Socioeconomic development is possible only in an atmosphere of national unity and mutual confidence among all stakeholders.

Source: Spotlight, VOL. 27, NO. 9, October 12, 2007