Koirala & State Restructuring
By Yuba Nath Lamsal
Although Nepal has, in principle, decided to adopt the federal structure, debate on the federal modal has entered a new dimension. Perhaps, it would be the thorniest issue that would consume more time and energy of the political parties in the Constituent Assembly in the process of drafting the new constitution.
The Interim constitution has defined Nepal as a federal democratic republic. All political parties except a couple of groups have been committed to the principle of federal Nepal. The idea of federalism in Nepal was first floated by the Maoists, which gained so much currency that it turned out to be the main political agenda of all parties. Bur political parties took the decision on federalism in such a haste that they did not even think it necessary to go for public debate on its pros and cons. This speaks of the authoritarian attitude of the parties that have taken the people just for granted.
Federalism is Maoist agenda. By convincing other political parties on the issue of federalism, the Maoists have been victors. The ex-rebels wanted a new issue and new agenda so that they could present themselves different from other parties both in terms of ideology and issues. The Maoists went even one step further advocating federalism with the right to self-determination. At the same time, they took up the issue of ethnicity because the ethnic conflict, according to the Maoists, was the most pressing issue in Nepal. They wanted to take political mileage by raising this issue and offering the dominant ethnic people their right to rule over other people. The Maoists tactics was to win over the ethnic groups and get their support for the party. This was purely a politicking of the Maoists and they reaped its benefit in the Constituent Assembly election.
As a matter of fact, federalism is not suitable in a small country like Nepal. The federalism based on ethnicity is even more dangerous in any country. The ethnicity based politics and states based on castes, religion and ethnicity were the ideas of the medieval period which are not compatible with modern age democracy. The modern democracy is a pluralist polity based on policies, programmes. This is also inconsistent with the Marxist political philosophy. Marxism does not allow politics based on castes, religion and ethnicity. The Maoists, whose policies and programmes are based on Marxist ideology and communist principles, must also be aware of this and they cannot be expected to push for ethnic politics.
Let us look at the international federal experience. Federalism has been successful in western democracies. The international experiences have shown that big countries that found it difficult to manage the vast expanse of their landmass from the centre opted for federalism. India and USA are the successful example of federalism. Most small countries have adopted unitary system because they can manage their affairs from the center. But they have granted full autonomy and decentralization of power to the local units of the government. Switzerland is an exception as it is a success story of federal system despite being a small country. Its federal model is unique and no other country in the world has been able to practice the Swiss model of federalism. Nepal is a small country in terms of size and population. Given its size, Nepal can easily manage its affairs. A unitary system with full authority and decentralization to local bodies would be better suited to Nepal. Moreover, Nepal which is already a poor and resource strapped country cannot afford for federalism because federalism is a costly venture.
The Maoists followed the Soviet model. Soviet Union was a huge country and it was impossible to manage perfectly only from Moscow. Moreover, Soviet Union was created by bringing different states together which had distinctly different languages, culture and value systems. Federalism with the right to self-determination was granted to Soviet federal states to ensure that there would not be any interference from Moscow on governance. But ultimately, Soviet Union collapsed and disintegrated because of federalism with the right to self-determination. Also other communist country that adopted federal structure was Yugoslavia, which has now been disintegrated into different countries. The rest of the communist countries did not follow federal structure and they could protect their sovereignty and territorial integrity intact.
In our neighbourhood, too, we have two great countries—India in the south and China in the north. Both of these countries are giants in terms of geographical size and population. But they have two different types of political system. India is a democracy of Westminster model whereas China is a communist state. India is federal country because its follows western political values. China has unitary system, despite it being a vast country. The present India needed to adopt the federal structure because this country was created by forcibly bringing different princely sates into the fold of British colonial rule. These states were kept together by the use of force until India was under British rule. Soon British were to leave India, this country was partitioned, out of which Pakistan was created. The partition of India had created fear among the leaders of independent India that others ethnic or lingual groups and regional enteritis may follow suit and demand separate states. If that happened, India might have been broken into different states. India, therefore, adopted federalism to discourage disintegration. But it has not solved India’s problem of separatist movement, which continues to exist in Kashmir, Nagaland and other parts of the country.
But China’s case is different. China has been a great power and big country for centuries. China did not feel it necessary to go for a federal state because of its ethnic composition of population and its long history of a unified nation. Creating federal system would mean to give rise to a feeling of separate identity among its population. Moreover, China is more or less a homogenous country and it was not built the way Soviet Union was created. After the Soviet Union collapsed and disintegrated, Russians have realized that there was a fundamental mistake in grating the right to self-determination. Moreover, the federal model is the western concept and it failed in the communist states. The Maoists should have learned lesson from this international experiences. Unfortunately, they pushed for this issue of federalism with the right to self-determination and ethnic and caste-based provinces not for the interest of the nation but for the interest of the party. Therein lies the fundamental flaw in the Maoist polices and strategies.
Nepal. Federalism is not a panacea for Nepal’s problems. Now time has come to review and reassess the pros and cons of the federal structure and rectify the mistake. More dangerous is the demand for creating caste or ethnicity based states within the federal Federalism may not be in the interest of the nation in the long-run, which our parties would realize only when damage will have been done. Now it seems that there is no going back because all political parties have committed to federal structure. The Maoists are not in the position of withdrawing from their stance as the federalism is their brain child. Nepali Congress and the CPN-UM, have toed the line of the Maoists. The Madhesi parties are set to reap maximum benefit from the federal structure and are pushing for one-Madhesh state, which, if granted, will be yet another disaster. The parties are cutting the country into different tiny provinces in the name of federal structure.
Against this background, the octogenarian leader Girija Prasad Koirala has come up vocally that all the models put forth by parties are flawed concept given the geo-political and geo-economic condition of the country. He has mooted the idea that the federal states should be divided along north-south line incorporating parts of Himalayan, Mountainous and Terai regions in the proposed federal states. Koirala’s proposal is akin to what we presently have—the five development regions. Given the country’s geographical condition, natural resources and demographic pattern, this concept seems to be more plausible for the larger interest of the country and the people.
Although Nepal has, in principle, decided to adopt the federal structure, debate on the federal modal has entered a new dimension. Perhaps, it would be the thorniest issue that would consume more time and energy of the political parties in the Constituent Assembly in the process of drafting the new constitution.
The Interim constitution has defined Nepal as a federal democratic republic. All political parties except a couple of groups have been committed to the principle of federal Nepal. The idea of federalism in Nepal was first floated by the Maoists, which gained so much currency that it turned out to be the main political agenda of all parties. Bur political parties took the decision on federalism in such a haste that they did not even think it necessary to go for public debate on its pros and cons. This speaks of the authoritarian attitude of the parties that have taken the people just for granted.
Federalism is Maoist agenda. By convincing other political parties on the issue of federalism, the Maoists have been victors. The ex-rebels wanted a new issue and new agenda so that they could present themselves different from other parties both in terms of ideology and issues. The Maoists went even one step further advocating federalism with the right to self-determination. At the same time, they took up the issue of ethnicity because the ethnic conflict, according to the Maoists, was the most pressing issue in Nepal. They wanted to take political mileage by raising this issue and offering the dominant ethnic people their right to rule over other people. The Maoists tactics was to win over the ethnic groups and get their support for the party. This was purely a politicking of the Maoists and they reaped its benefit in the Constituent Assembly election.
As a matter of fact, federalism is not suitable in a small country like Nepal. The federalism based on ethnicity is even more dangerous in any country. The ethnicity based politics and states based on castes, religion and ethnicity were the ideas of the medieval period which are not compatible with modern age democracy. The modern democracy is a pluralist polity based on policies, programmes. This is also inconsistent with the Marxist political philosophy. Marxism does not allow politics based on castes, religion and ethnicity. The Maoists, whose policies and programmes are based on Marxist ideology and communist principles, must also be aware of this and they cannot be expected to push for ethnic politics.
Let us look at the international federal experience. Federalism has been successful in western democracies. The international experiences have shown that big countries that found it difficult to manage the vast expanse of their landmass from the centre opted for federalism. India and USA are the successful example of federalism. Most small countries have adopted unitary system because they can manage their affairs from the center. But they have granted full autonomy and decentralization of power to the local units of the government. Switzerland is an exception as it is a success story of federal system despite being a small country. Its federal model is unique and no other country in the world has been able to practice the Swiss model of federalism. Nepal is a small country in terms of size and population. Given its size, Nepal can easily manage its affairs. A unitary system with full authority and decentralization to local bodies would be better suited to Nepal. Moreover, Nepal which is already a poor and resource strapped country cannot afford for federalism because federalism is a costly venture.
The Maoists followed the Soviet model. Soviet Union was a huge country and it was impossible to manage perfectly only from Moscow. Moreover, Soviet Union was created by bringing different states together which had distinctly different languages, culture and value systems. Federalism with the right to self-determination was granted to Soviet federal states to ensure that there would not be any interference from Moscow on governance. But ultimately, Soviet Union collapsed and disintegrated because of federalism with the right to self-determination. Also other communist country that adopted federal structure was Yugoslavia, which has now been disintegrated into different countries. The rest of the communist countries did not follow federal structure and they could protect their sovereignty and territorial integrity intact.
In our neighbourhood, too, we have two great countries—India in the south and China in the north. Both of these countries are giants in terms of geographical size and population. But they have two different types of political system. India is a democracy of Westminster model whereas China is a communist state. India is federal country because its follows western political values. China has unitary system, despite it being a vast country. The present India needed to adopt the federal structure because this country was created by forcibly bringing different princely sates into the fold of British colonial rule. These states were kept together by the use of force until India was under British rule. Soon British were to leave India, this country was partitioned, out of which Pakistan was created. The partition of India had created fear among the leaders of independent India that others ethnic or lingual groups and regional enteritis may follow suit and demand separate states. If that happened, India might have been broken into different states. India, therefore, adopted federalism to discourage disintegration. But it has not solved India’s problem of separatist movement, which continues to exist in Kashmir, Nagaland and other parts of the country.
But China’s case is different. China has been a great power and big country for centuries. China did not feel it necessary to go for a federal state because of its ethnic composition of population and its long history of a unified nation. Creating federal system would mean to give rise to a feeling of separate identity among its population. Moreover, China is more or less a homogenous country and it was not built the way Soviet Union was created. After the Soviet Union collapsed and disintegrated, Russians have realized that there was a fundamental mistake in grating the right to self-determination. Moreover, the federal model is the western concept and it failed in the communist states. The Maoists should have learned lesson from this international experiences. Unfortunately, they pushed for this issue of federalism with the right to self-determination and ethnic and caste-based provinces not for the interest of the nation but for the interest of the party. Therein lies the fundamental flaw in the Maoist polices and strategies.
Nepal. Federalism is not a panacea for Nepal’s problems. Now time has come to review and reassess the pros and cons of the federal structure and rectify the mistake. More dangerous is the demand for creating caste or ethnicity based states within the federal Federalism may not be in the interest of the nation in the long-run, which our parties would realize only when damage will have been done. Now it seems that there is no going back because all political parties have committed to federal structure. The Maoists are not in the position of withdrawing from their stance as the federalism is their brain child. Nepali Congress and the CPN-UM, have toed the line of the Maoists. The Madhesi parties are set to reap maximum benefit from the federal structure and are pushing for one-Madhesh state, which, if granted, will be yet another disaster. The parties are cutting the country into different tiny provinces in the name of federal structure.
Against this background, the octogenarian leader Girija Prasad Koirala has come up vocally that all the models put forth by parties are flawed concept given the geo-political and geo-economic condition of the country. He has mooted the idea that the federal states should be divided along north-south line incorporating parts of Himalayan, Mountainous and Terai regions in the proposed federal states. Koirala’s proposal is akin to what we presently have—the five development regions. Given the country’s geographical condition, natural resources and demographic pattern, this concept seems to be more plausible for the larger interest of the country and the people.
Comments
Post a Comment