Nepal’s Reality And Federal Structure

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 are also committed to the federal system.

Why federalism?

Ever since Nepal was created, it has remained a unitary state. Nepal was created by physically assimilating 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 backwardness politically, economically, culturally and linguistically. Although physically unified, some communities did not feel emotionally assimilated.

State power was controlled by Kathmandu’s elites, which included the Brahmins, Chhetris and Newars. It is true that other ethnic communities were left behind. The policies and plans were made by the elite in Kathmandu who had never seen and felt the needs of the local areas and communities. In the name of decentralisation, some trickledown effect was seen but that was far from sufficient. As a result, the capital, urban centres 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 was delegated to the local community to make them masters of their own destiny.

Now people belonging to different geographic regions and ethnic and linguistic communities have proposed different models of the federal structure. Some have demanded federal states on the basis of ethnicity. Some political parties have backed this proposition. The Maoist party 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 But the notion of creating states on the basis of ethnicity is obsolete and unscientific. Moreover, Nepal does not have any area where one particular ethnic group commands majority in terms of population. Different ethnic people are 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 a communist party supported 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, ethnic politics would be detrimental for Nepal as well. So the political parties that have been pursuing ethnicity-based politics must rethink their policies if they are at all serious about national interest.

If we look at the countries where federalism has been successful, the basis of the federal structure has been other than ethnicity and language. Federalism has worked well in neighbouring India. The federal states were created based on geography and other factors but not ethnicity. In the United States and Switzerland, which are considered the best examples of federalism, ethnicity is not the basis for the federal states.

The Maoists’ conclusion is that the 10-year-old conflict was rooted deeply in ethnic conflict and if they could address the ethic rights and issues, they would be able to consolidate their organisational strength in the constituencies dominated by the ethnic population. Guided by this notion, the Maoists proposed ethnicity-based federalism. But they failed to realise that ethnicity-based federal structure does not suit the modern era of the 21st century.

This strategy has not helped the Maoists as much as they had envisaged, which some of the Maoist leaders have started realising. But they have not been able to come out openly against ethnicity-based politics. The other issue that has to be discussed more intensively is the Maoist proposition of the 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 lessons from the Soviet Union, which 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. A dispute arose 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 weakened. When Stalin reached power after Lenin’s demise, this issue was totally removed from the topic of discussion, saying "The communist state would always have a strong central government with a 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 other countries in the world also 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 the mighty Himalayas, great river systems and fertile plains. Accordingly, we have climatic variation with unique ecological diversity. These geographical conditions have created different cultures and life styles. Thus, ethnicity and culture did not create the geography, but geography conditioned the culture of Nepal.

Like it or not, we are going for a federal model. All the political parties except for a couple of fringe parties have backed the issue. But the parties differ on the modalities. This issue has to be settled and incorporated in the new constitution that is in the making. This issue is certain to 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 their proposition was not based on the ground reality of the country. Today they seem just as confused as the 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 ethnicity-based federalism and want geography-determined federalism. The Madhes-based parties have even proposed a single Madhes state, which is impractical.

Number of states

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 the parties have already committed to go the 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 to keep the number of states to below half a dozen.

The political parties must see to it that geographical conditions are given due consideration in determining the federal structure and not ethnicity. Nepal’s geography has created a single Nepali culture within which many other sub-cultures have prospered.