Federalism may again fail the Constituent Assembly
Yuba Nath Lamsal
A key political and strategic issue in the contemporary politics
of Nepal since
this Himalayan Republic entered into a new political
and peaceful
phase after the signing of the peace accord between the government and the insurgent Maoists in 2006 has been the state restructuring or federalism.
The gravity and complication of the state restructuring issue was earlier not comprehended initially by the political actors of the time except the Maoists as it was entirely a new concept in the political lexicon of Nepal. When the
issue formally came to the fore for discussion and decision in the Constituent Assembly and outside, then only the political parties and other stakeholders realized its complications and intricacies. This is fundamentally the sole factor that failed the first Constituent Assembly and ultimately led to its shameful demise.
Political forces and parties saw their victory in the demise of the first Constituent Assembly without accomplishing its principal task of delivering a new constitution. This is because no political party had to compromise anything. The Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML had nothing to lose in the demise and dissolution of the CA as they were not in the dominant role in the House. The Maoist was the largest party but it too did not have the sufficient number to get its agenda through and endorsed with its own strength in the Constituent Assembly. As a result, the Constituent Assembly had been a burden to all. Moreover, the Maoist was disillusioned that if fresh elections were held they would be in better position. Thus, all parties agreed on this option.
issue formally came to the fore for discussion and decision in the Constituent Assembly and outside, then only the political parties and other stakeholders realized its complications and intricacies. This is fundamentally the sole factor that failed the first Constituent Assembly and ultimately led to its shameful demise.
Political forces and parties saw their victory in the demise of the first Constituent Assembly without accomplishing its principal task of delivering a new constitution. This is because no political party had to compromise anything. The Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML had nothing to lose in the demise and dissolution of the CA as they were not in the dominant role in the House. The Maoist was the largest party but it too did not have the sufficient number to get its agenda through and endorsed with its own strength in the Constituent Assembly. As a result, the Constituent Assembly had been a burden to all. Moreover, the Maoist was disillusioned that if fresh elections were held they would be in better position. Thus, all parties agreed on this option.
But, in essence, the
nation was defeated when the first Constituent Assembly was dissolved. The
entire exercises made for more than five years were since the peace process
began were lost and energy and resources spent on it got wasted. More
importantly, the hopes of the people that the country would enter into a new
phase of peace, stability and prosperity were once again dashed. The country
continued to remain in transition marked by instability, anarchy,
insecurity and uncertainty.
State restructuring is not merely an adjusting the upper echelon of power division but it is a process of shifting the power from core to the peripheries and from center to the local level and from a one group or clan to the people at the grassroots. In the beginning when the issue of state restructuring or federal structure was first raised by the Maoists, the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML were a little hesitant. But the Maoists took it as a key condition for entering into peace process, Girija Prasad Koirala, who was the president of the Nepali Congress at that time and principal leader of the seven party alliance, agreed on this issue and
convinced his own Nepali Congress as well as other parties that were part of the seven party alliance. This is how the state restructuring issue was agreed upon and federalism was accordingly incorporated in
the Interim Constitution. Thus, the Interim Constitution has clearly mentioned that Nepal is a federal democratic republic.
Since the Interim Constitution has clearly stated that Nepal would be a federal democratic republic, which is a guideline not only for running the country but also the principal basis for writing a new constitution. Although the Constituent Assembly is sovereign, it, too cannot override the principles the Interim Constitution has established. This means federalism, democracy and republic set up are unchangeable and these three things cannot be compromised come what may. And the country now cannot back out from federalism.
But sharp differences have continued to persist among different political actors of the country right from the beginning since this issue came up for discussion. The complication is on the number, border and nature of the new federal states to be incorporated in the new constitution. This issue has now come as a big headache for political parties. The political parties cannot backpedal from it as they have already committed it in the Interim Constitution and also have promised the people to restructure the state on the principles of true federalism.
Some political parties are of the view that there has to be minimum number of federal states. The Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML mainly represent this view and say that the country cannot economically
afford many federal states. They want maximum seven federal provinces. However, the Maoists are insisting for more federal states to accommodate their own roadmap of federalism. The Madhesi parties are other
dominant forces that have their own roadmap and demand of federalism. They are not concerned in other things but want one single Madhes state in the southern plain from the east to the west. There are some other
political parties and forces that are opposed to the entire idea of federalism but their views and demands are least likely to be heard and addressed.
The more complication has surfaced as some forces have raised the issue concerning the identity-based federalism. The Maoists and some ethnic communities are backing the identity-based federalism. Madhesi
parties, too, are sympathetic to this demand. There have been divergent views and perceptions on the identity and identity-based federalism. Some call identity as the ethnic identity and they are demanding that
federal states be delineated on ethnic line. But others are of the view that ethnicity is not the sole identity of a person or group and are federating states on ethnic line. According to them, there are other factors that give a person or group their identity. Geography, nature and civilization also determine the identity of a person or group. The failure to fully and rationally comprehend the essence of identity has complicated the entire issue. As a result, the debate on federalism within Constituent Assembly and outside have not been productive as the parties have taken two rival and opposite directions and sides. Even the Commission constituted to recommend the federal states and model failed to prove its neutrality and competence. The Commission, too, was divided on the number, nature and modality of the federal states and it presented two parallel reports to the government.
Similar case was with the state restructuring committee and the constitutional committee of the CA, which also could not come up with an unformed report. This divide in the political circle of Nepal continues even today in the new Constituent Assembly. Now the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML are in the position to muster two-thirds majority in the Constituent Assembly which would be sufficient for the passage of the
constitution. This means that the ethnicity-based federalism would be defeated. However, the Maoists are not in the mood of giving this issue so easily although they do not have required strength to defeat or block the decision in the Constituent Assembly. They are now creating a united front both within the Constituent Assembly and outside to exert pressure on the Congress and the UML to agree on their agenda including the identity-based federalism. So a new kind of polarization seems to be inevitable in Nepal that is likely to create more complication not only in the constitution writing process but also in the entire political course
of Nepal.
If this issue was not resolved amicably, this will likely to instigate and incite violence and conflict in the society once again as the ethnic communities are not going to accept the constitution if their identity was not recognized in the new federal structure. However, at the same time, other forces are also equally determined not to allow ethnic federalism. Thus, the state restructuring or federalism issue has created the situation of deadlock that political parties neither can take a drastic decision nor move back. Given this situation of
gridlock, political parties are likely to shelve the federalism issue except accepting it principally in the new constitution. They will come up with the new constitution leaving federalism issue to be decided later. This may create a new scenario in which political parties may ultimately arrive at a conclusion of approving the present Interim Constitution with some modifications and giving it to the newer and final shape as
the new constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal. This scenario is very likely because the political parties are not in the position to outright reject and ignore the Mohan Vaidya-led CPN-Maoist party that is not in the Constituent Assembly. Vaidya group, too, may agree on the proposition of turning the present Interim Constitution into a new constitution as it was also part when the Interim Constitution was drawn in 2006. Political parties may choose this option as a bitter pill under compulsion in order to ensure that all players and actors accept it, which is necessary for peace and stability of the country.
State restructuring is not merely an adjusting the upper echelon of power division but it is a process of shifting the power from core to the peripheries and from center to the local level and from a one group or clan to the people at the grassroots. In the beginning when the issue of state restructuring or federal structure was first raised by the Maoists, the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML were a little hesitant. But the Maoists took it as a key condition for entering into peace process, Girija Prasad Koirala, who was the president of the Nepali Congress at that time and principal leader of the seven party alliance, agreed on this issue and
convinced his own Nepali Congress as well as other parties that were part of the seven party alliance. This is how the state restructuring issue was agreed upon and federalism was accordingly incorporated in
the Interim Constitution. Thus, the Interim Constitution has clearly mentioned that Nepal is a federal democratic republic.
Since the Interim Constitution has clearly stated that Nepal would be a federal democratic republic, which is a guideline not only for running the country but also the principal basis for writing a new constitution. Although the Constituent Assembly is sovereign, it, too cannot override the principles the Interim Constitution has established. This means federalism, democracy and republic set up are unchangeable and these three things cannot be compromised come what may. And the country now cannot back out from federalism.
But sharp differences have continued to persist among different political actors of the country right from the beginning since this issue came up for discussion. The complication is on the number, border and nature of the new federal states to be incorporated in the new constitution. This issue has now come as a big headache for political parties. The political parties cannot backpedal from it as they have already committed it in the Interim Constitution and also have promised the people to restructure the state on the principles of true federalism.
Some political parties are of the view that there has to be minimum number of federal states. The Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML mainly represent this view and say that the country cannot economically
afford many federal states. They want maximum seven federal provinces. However, the Maoists are insisting for more federal states to accommodate their own roadmap of federalism. The Madhesi parties are other
dominant forces that have their own roadmap and demand of federalism. They are not concerned in other things but want one single Madhes state in the southern plain from the east to the west. There are some other
political parties and forces that are opposed to the entire idea of federalism but their views and demands are least likely to be heard and addressed.
The more complication has surfaced as some forces have raised the issue concerning the identity-based federalism. The Maoists and some ethnic communities are backing the identity-based federalism. Madhesi
parties, too, are sympathetic to this demand. There have been divergent views and perceptions on the identity and identity-based federalism. Some call identity as the ethnic identity and they are demanding that
federal states be delineated on ethnic line. But others are of the view that ethnicity is not the sole identity of a person or group and are federating states on ethnic line. According to them, there are other factors that give a person or group their identity. Geography, nature and civilization also determine the identity of a person or group. The failure to fully and rationally comprehend the essence of identity has complicated the entire issue. As a result, the debate on federalism within Constituent Assembly and outside have not been productive as the parties have taken two rival and opposite directions and sides. Even the Commission constituted to recommend the federal states and model failed to prove its neutrality and competence. The Commission, too, was divided on the number, nature and modality of the federal states and it presented two parallel reports to the government.
Similar case was with the state restructuring committee and the constitutional committee of the CA, which also could not come up with an unformed report. This divide in the political circle of Nepal continues even today in the new Constituent Assembly. Now the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML are in the position to muster two-thirds majority in the Constituent Assembly which would be sufficient for the passage of the
constitution. This means that the ethnicity-based federalism would be defeated. However, the Maoists are not in the mood of giving this issue so easily although they do not have required strength to defeat or block the decision in the Constituent Assembly. They are now creating a united front both within the Constituent Assembly and outside to exert pressure on the Congress and the UML to agree on their agenda including the identity-based federalism. So a new kind of polarization seems to be inevitable in Nepal that is likely to create more complication not only in the constitution writing process but also in the entire political course
of Nepal.
If this issue was not resolved amicably, this will likely to instigate and incite violence and conflict in the society once again as the ethnic communities are not going to accept the constitution if their identity was not recognized in the new federal structure. However, at the same time, other forces are also equally determined not to allow ethnic federalism. Thus, the state restructuring or federalism issue has created the situation of deadlock that political parties neither can take a drastic decision nor move back. Given this situation of
gridlock, political parties are likely to shelve the federalism issue except accepting it principally in the new constitution. They will come up with the new constitution leaving federalism issue to be decided later. This may create a new scenario in which political parties may ultimately arrive at a conclusion of approving the present Interim Constitution with some modifications and giving it to the newer and final shape as
the new constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal. This scenario is very likely because the political parties are not in the position to outright reject and ignore the Mohan Vaidya-led CPN-Maoist party that is not in the Constituent Assembly. Vaidya group, too, may agree on the proposition of turning the present Interim Constitution into a new constitution as it was also part when the Interim Constitution was drawn in 2006. Political parties may choose this option as a bitter pill under compulsion in order to ensure that all players and actors accept it, which is necessary for peace and stability of the country.
Comments
Post a Comment