Politics getting polarized

Yuba Nath Lamsal
Recent developments unfolding in our political spectrum only suggest that Nepal may witness a new but natural kind of political polarization. Its symptoms are already visible in our political horizon. After the results of the engineered election held in November 2013 came out, politics of Nepal has taken a new turn and twist. In the election, the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML were declared the winners whereas the UCPN-Maoist was given the place of distant third.
Agenda wise, the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML are on one side while the UCPN-Maoist and even the CPN-Maoist are in the other camp. The Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML are, therefore, natural partners as  their political orientation and agenda almost converge and match. Look at the issue concerning the governance model and federalism. The Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML seem to have accepted federalism under  duress and they want to create as little number of provinces as they can. According to them, lower the number of federal provinces, better it would be for Nepal both politically and economically. Also they want the provincial states less powerful with more power resting with the central government. In other words, they want some kind of Panchayat era power decentralization or five development regions.
However, the UCPN-Maoist, CPN-Maoist, Madhesi and ethnic parties are pushing for powerful provincial states with right to self-determination. Some are even demanding ethnic based-federalism in which priority right and prerogatives would rest on the dominant ethnic community of the states with especially reserved rights for ethnic minorities.  But a couple of fringe parties are even against the federal system as such and are demanding that the new constitution must ensure the unitary state as federalism does not suit to Nepal.
They have their own logics and counter logics. But all are right in some points and wrong in the rest. Even those who are opposing federal system have their valid points and arguments. Thus, the arguments for and against federalism have both positive and negative sides. In other words, the parties are neither 100 per cent correct and nor are they totally wrong. If we look at the logics of the Maoists and Madhesi parties, it
appears as though federalism is the panacea of all the existing problems in the country. However, things are not as these parties have claimed. Federalism is not the solution to all problems. To speak more
fairly, the country, in fact, may not need federalism, if good governance was delivered at the grass roots level. The concept of federalism is to ensure better access of the people at the grassroots level to the decision making and services of the government. In other words, federalism is supposed to deliver services to the people at their door steps and ensure self-rule. But experts are of the view that the way federalism
is being discussed and debated, its purpose is not to deliver services to the people and empower them but to create several unitary states out of one unitary state.

To become a realist, we must accept the fact that Nepal is a tiny state that can run well even without federalism if true sense decentralization practiced. But it is not to say that federalism is not needed. What is intended to say is that the fundamental aspect is the practice and self-rule- whether it is federalism or functional decentralization under federal structure. If the past practices and experiences are any lesson for us, Nepal's decentralization and local self-governance remained only in papers. After the 1990 political change a lot of talking took place and a lot of budget spent in the name of decentralization and local self-rule. But it produced a little result and people could hardly feel any difference in their life. This situation necessitated to go for a federal structure of the country.

All major political forces have already committed to federalism and there is no going back from it. This means Nepal will be a federal country but its nature, number and power structure have not yet been decided. Since federalism is our new experience and experiment, we need to move ahead cautiously. According to experts, the concept of right to self-determination is dangerous as it may ultimately lead to disintegration of the country if federalism was not properly managed. We need to learn historic lessons from the
balkanization process and disintegration of former Soviet Union. On the issue concerning the right to self-determination to be granted to the federated states, a heated debate between V I Lenin of Soviet Union
and Rosa Luxembourg of Germany needs to be mentioned here that can really give us a good lesson for us at the present context as we are in the process of federating our country. Lenin had agreed to grant right to
self-determination to all federated provinces of the Soviet Union, which meant the provinces could event opt to secede if they so desired. Rosa Luxembourg had strong reservation on this proposition and had objected to Lenin augmenting that Soviet Union would ultimately be disintegrated because of this provision. Rosa had alsoasked Lenin not to play such a 'suicidal' game by granting the right to self-determination to federal states. However, Lenin refused to buzz to Rosa's demand but said that disintegration would not be possible as
long as the central authority of the Soviet Union was strong enough and it would happen only when the central authority weakened. In the long-run, both Rosa and Lenin were proved to be right. Rosa was right
because the Soviet Union got disintegrated by asserting the same right to self-determination. Similarly, Lenin was also right because the Soviet Union did not disintegrate as long as the central authority was
strong. Once the authority in Moscow was weakened for various reasons, the federated states asserted the right to self-determination and declared independence. Now more than a dozen countries have emerged out of the single Soviet Union, which is attributed to the provision of the right to self-determination granted by the Soviet constitution. Now Nepal needs to learn an important lesson from this.
The other issue that experts and others have shown their strong reservation and objection is the ethnicity-based federalism in the name of identity. Identity and ethnicity are two different terminologies that have different connotation and meaning. The Maoists have demanded identity-based federalism, which is being interpreted by other parties including the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML as ethnic
federalism and the Maoists are being accused of fanning racism, communalism and communal friction in the society. In reality, Maoists are not fanning communal discord but pushing for establishing identity of all ethnic, cultural, lingual and religious communities. While the Nepali Congress and CPN-UML are shrewdly calculating their design on how to move ahead to divert the issue of federalism and giving continuity to the old unitary state, the Maoists and Madhesis seem to be unwilling to back out from their stance of federalism. Here is the fundamental difference between the Maoists and other parties regarding federalism.

This is the crux of problem that failed the first Constituent Assembly to deliver the constitution. There has been a broad agreement on all other issues except federalism and form of governance. That is the reason why it is said that more than 80 per cent of the constitution writing had been completed by the earlier Constituent Assembly and only the 20 per cent job had remained unsettled. This view is also wrong. All other issues are general issues and these two are the major ones. In other words, these two issues carry 80 per cent weight because these are the issues that have direct bearing on state restructuring and determining the model of governance or political model. Thus, parties and representatives in the Constituent Assembly are required to accord more attention, strength, priority, energy and time to these issues. This alone can help find an amicable solution to these issues and come up with a draft of a new constitution.

These are the two key issues that have polarized the entire nation. Unless these two issues are settled, it is almost certain that the constitution would not be delivered. But the two ruling parties, which have slightly less than two third majority appear in the mood of bulldozing and declaring constitution on the basis of majority. If they try to do so, it would prove to be politically counterproductive to the nation. It may not resolve the country’s problem but invite yet another type of conflict. Already sensing this move of the two ruling parties, the UCPN-Maoist and the Mohan Vaidya-led CPN-Maoist have come closer and vowed to work collectively. Some other fringe parties, too, may join this camp. This is the beginning of a new political polarization in the country. If such polarization takes place and the relationship between the two political poles worsens, the country only sees a new disaster. Thus, the two ruling parties are required to be a little more responsible and serious to accommodate demands and voices of the opposition both within and outside the Constituent Assembly and make optimum effort to bring the constitution with consent and consensus of all political forces of the country.