Federalism: Make It Manageable

Federalism: Make It Manageable

Yuba Nath Lamsal

Nepal is now in the process of transformation from a unitary system to a federal super structure. Federalism is a political structure that distinctly divides authority between the centre and the provincial units. In a unitary state, power is concentrated in the central government, and the central authority delegates certain powers to the lower units in a rather arbitrary manner. Power delegation in a unitary system may not be commensurate with the genuine spirit of decentralisation.

Power decentralisation

Despite the delegation of authority, the central government often reserves full right to encroach upon the authority delegated to the local units. The real local self-governance, which is in vogue in today’s democratic era, may not be possible in a unitary system. Only a federal system with clear-cut definitions and demarcation of the central government’s authority and the rights of the provincial units can ensure true power decentralisation and local-self governance in the practical sense.

Democracy is the people’s polity in which the people have full and total participation in the decision-making process and state affairs that have a direct impact on people’s lives. Only total autonomy based on full participation of the people in the political process makes the local people masters of their own destiny, which is possible only in a federal democratic system. Such conditions may not always be possible in a unitary system, although there are many countries in the world with a unitary system. But they have managed to ensure genuine local self-governance and autonomy in the decision-making process at the local level.

If we look at the political map of the world, there are more countries with a unitary system than with a federal model. But voices for a federal system are getting stronger in the world. However, federalism is not a panacea for all problems. There are many examples where people have been deprived of their rights even when they have adopted the federal system. In such countries, authority is transferred from the centre to the provincial units, but the power is exercised by a handful of elites in the provinces whereas the general people continue to be deprived of their right to participate in the political process.

There are many countries which have a unitary system, but their people enjoy total autonomy in the decision-making process at all levels. If the federal system is to work in accordance with its principle, power must be clearly demarcated and defined from the central unit to the lowest level, for that matter, from the central government to the village level.

There are two schools of thought as far as the federal system is concerned. One school of thought advocates the federal system to ensure genuine democracy and total autonomy of the local people in the decision-making process. The other school of thought is of the view that the federal system works only in big countries with huge populations but not in small countries.

It is true that the federal system is more practical and functional in big countries where it often becomes difficult for the central authority to look into matters at the local level and manage local affairs. In such countries, federal states are fully independent to decide on their affairs except defence, foreign policy, monetary policy and some other matters clearly defined by the constitution. The central government cannot encroach upon their jurisdiction.

But there are many countries where the federal system has created problems and friction between the central authority and provincial governments. If the definition and division of powers between the central and local authorities are not clearly and specifically defined, the federal system is likely to be more problematic as it will create friction between the centre and the provincial authorities.

The concept of a federal system was first implemented in the United States. Even now the United States is the best example of such a system where the rights of the central and state governments are clearly defined. Germany, Canada, Australia, Switzerland are other successful models of the federal system. When we look at the Indian model, it has had more problems and failures than successes.

In India, there is no clear definition and demarcation of the rights and jurisdiction of the central government and state government, which has often created friction between the centre and the states. There are instances where the central government has dissolved state governments many a times simply due to the friction between the centre and the state governments. This is not the case with other countries.

The concept of federalism in Nepal is a recent phenomenon. This issue came to the fore after Jana Andolan II. Initially federalism was a Maoist agenda. But it has now become a national agenda because it has already been incorporated in the interim constitution. All the major parties are committed to federalism, and there is no going back. Whether one likes it or not, the country must now go for the federal structure.

But federalism was accepted by the parties without doing any homework and without a thorough national debate. An extensive nationwide debate should have been conducted on the pros and cons of federalism before arriving at a conclusion. This was a blunder on the part of the parties mainly the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML.

Nepal is a small country which can be managed even without federalism if the power is decentralised in the true sense. Federalism is a costly system. Now we have a central parliament and central cabinet. In a federal system, there will be a parliament and cabinet in all the provincial states, and this system will definitely put a burden on the national exchequer. But we have no alternative other than to accept federalism because we are already committed to it. What we can do now is to make federalism manageable.

Public opinion on the federal system is also divided in Nepal. Some view federalism as an alien agenda designed to disintegrate Nepal. But this is an absurd idea which cannot be justified. Federalism does not break up countries, rather it unites nations. Federalism saves the country from disintegration. But the way the federal structure is being drawn has definitely raised some questions.

Some groups and parties are demanding and pushing for federal states on the basis of ethnicity. Their demand for ethnicity-based federal structure is to ensure ethnic-based politics in Nepal. But ethnic-based politics does not give identity to the ethnic groups, it will rather politicise the ethnic identity which will prove harmful to them in the long-run.

Ethnicity-based federalism has been linked with people’s identity. Nepal has more than 100 ethnic groups, nationalities and indigenous groups. If federalism is to be created based on ethnic identity, there should be more than 100 provincial states, which is impossible. Moreover, ethnicity is not the only yardstick of people’s identity. What happens if some people demand states based on religious identity because they may think that religion is their identity? Can we agree on a Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or Jain state on the basis of religious identity?

Ethnic and religious identities are artificial. The permanent and natural identity is the country’s geography. If provinces are created on ethnic lines, they will have to be re-demarcated every 10 years when the demographic pattern changes. Demography is always dynamic and changes frequently. Natural identity does not change. What can be a better identity of Nepal than Mt Everest? Rivers are the foundation of all civilisations in the world. The Bagmati, Gandaki, Karnali and Koshi are rivers that have contributed to different civilisations in our own country.

The Kathmandu Valley is basically a Bagmati civilisation which is by no means inferior to any other civilisations in the world. Why, then, should there be objection to be identified with these ancient civilisations and name provinces after our great rivers and natural heritages? This would make all of us proud.

Nepal is known in the world as the land of Everest, the mighty Himalayas, great peaks, rivers, lakes and natural beauty but not as the land of Brahmins, Kshetrias, Newars, Rais, Limbus, Madhesis and Gurungs. In the name of identity, we are focussing on a lesser identity while ignoring our greater and more important identity.

We have already committed a mistake by committing ourselves to federalism without doing any prior home work. We would be making a greater mistake if we play ethnic politics and create federal provinces on ethnic lines. It may help certain individuals and political parties in pursuing their immediate politics, but it will definitely not help the country in the long run.

The right federal model

Even the champions of an ethnicity-based federal structure will regret in the future. But that would be too late, and we may not be able to correct it. We still have time and can make correction for which the parties and leaders must think and rethink many times before taking the final decision on the federal model.