Nepal’s reality and federal structure

By Yuba Nath Lamsal

Nepal has already decided to adopt a federal structure. The interim constitution has defined Nepal as a federal democratic republic, which means there is no going back to a unitary state. Most of the political parties have also committed to go for the federal way.
Why federalism?
Ever since Nepal was created, it remained a unitary state. Nepal was created by physically assimilating different tiny principalities that had their unique culture, language and system of governance. The unification was a historical necessity. Right after the unification, the approach and policies that the rulers in Kathmandu adopted were based on the strategy of consolidating the newly created unified country. But the later rulers adopted wrong policies that left the many communities and regions in a state of destitute politically, economically, culturally and linguistically. Despite physically unified, some communities did not feel emotionally assimilated.
The state power was controlled by Kathmandu’s elites, which included Brahmins, Chhetris and Newars. It is true that other ethnic communities were left behind. The policies and plans were made by the elites in Kathmandu who had never seen and felt the needs of the local areas and communities. In the name of decentralization, some trickledown effect was seen but that was far insufficient. As a result, the capital, urban centers and a few areas where the rulers had their own interest got the benefit, whereas the rest of the country was left behind. This situation demanded a federal structure to ensure that power is delegated to the local community and make them masters of their own destiny.
Now people belonging to different geographic regions and ethnic and linguistic communities have proposed different models of federal structure. Some have demanded federal states on the basis of ethnicity. Some political parties have backed this proposition. The Maoist party is the one that first mooted the idea of federal states on the basis of ethnicity. But the notion of creating states on the basis of ethnicity is obsolete and unscientific which cannot be appreciated. Moreover, Nepal does not have any area where one particular ethnic group commands majority in terms of population. Different ethnic people have scattered all over Nepal.
What is interesting in Nepal is that the Maoist party is pushing aggressively for the ethnic based federal states with the right to self-determination. Nowhere in the world has the communist party supported the ethnic politics other than Nepal. We have seen the example of Balkan states and former Yugoslavia, where ethnic politics ultimately tore apart the country. Thus, the ethnic politics would be detrimental in Nepal as well, which the political parties that have been pursuing ethnicity-based politics must rethink their policies if they are all serious about national interest.
If we look at the countries where federalism has been successful, the basis of federal structure is other than the ethnicity and language. In our closest neighbor—India, federalism has worked perfectly. The federal states were created based on geography and other factors but not the ethnicity. In the United States and Switzerland, which are considered the best example of federalism, ethnicity is not the basis for creating federal states.
The Maoists are the propagators of federalism in Nepal. The Maoists’ conclusion was that ethnic conflict was the deep-rooted conflict in Nepal and if they could address ethic rights and issues they would consolidate their organizational strength in the constituencies dominated by ethnic population. Guided by this notion, the Maoists proposed for an ethnicity based federalism. But they failed to realize that ethnicity-based federal structure does not suit in the modern era of 21st century. This strategy has not helped the Maoists as much as they had envisaged, which some of the Maoist leaders have started realizing. But they have not been able to come openly against the ethnicity-based politics. The other issue that has to be discussed more intensively is the Maoist proposition of right to self determination. This is yet another blunder of the Maoists, which must be corrected in the interest of the country.
We must also learn lesson from the Soviet Union, which was disintegrated into several states on the basis of the constitutional provision of right to self-determination. After the success of the October Revolution that established a socialist republic under the leadership of Lenin, the Soviet Constitution incorporated a provision that gave the rights of self determination to the Soviet states. This was one of the disputes between Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg which continued for a long time. It was reported that Lenin, at one point, had also accepted that provision of right to self determination would harm the Soviet Union once the central government was weakened. When Stalin went to power after Lenin’s demise, this issue was totally removed from the topic of discussion saying “ the communist state would always have strong central government with the strong army that would always keep the country intact and united”.
Nepal is a multi-ethnic and multi-lingual country. This is our national character but it is other countries in the world have ethnic and cultural diversity. What is unique in Nepal is its geographical variation and diversity. In such a tiny stretch of land, we have mighty Himalayas, great river systems flowing down from the Himalayan range with the capacity of generating over 83,000 megawatt electricity, tall mountains and fertile plain in the Terai. Accordingly, we have climatic variation with unique ecological diversity. These geographical conditions have created different cultures and life style. Thus, the ethnicity and culture did not create the geography but geography conditioned the culture of Nepal.
Like it or not, we are going for federal model. All political parties except a couple of fringe parties have backed the federalism. But parties have differed on the modalities. This issue has to be settled and incorporated in the new constitution that is in the making. This issue would certainly consume more time in the constituent assembly than other issues. The Maoists were seen to be clearer on the issue of federalism and its structure in the beginning. But proposition was not based on ground reality of the country. Later they have also been confused like other parties including the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML. What is good about the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML is that they are opposed to the ethnicity-based federalism and want geography-determined federalism. The Madesh-based parties have propagated even more unpractical idea of one-Single Madhes state.
There are certain sections of the people who are of the view that federalism is too expensive for a small and poor country like Nepal. This idea may have its own logic but it has lost its relevance since all parties have already committed to go for federal way. However, we can avert the crisis by carefully and wisely taking decisions while deciding the number and nature of the federal states. Given the country’s size and economy, it would be wise it we minimize the number of states not exceeding half a dozen.
Taking all the ideas and their prognosis, the political parties have to arrive at the conclusion that the geographical conditions have to be given due consideration in determining the federal structure and not the ethnicity. The geography has created a single Nepali culture within which many other sub-cultures have prospered.

Comments