In an ethnically based federal structure Professor Chaitanya Mishra worries about the possibility of economic disarticulation and market fragmentation affecting the overall efficiency of the economy with negative implications on employment, investments and the well being of the people, all in the name of ethnic federalism. There are already some signs of this kind of fragmentation in the country. So those who plead for naming the states on ethnic lines must also be serious about taking a strong position on linkages that transform the federal entities into a unified whole as a nation. A garland is beautiful and useful only when there is a strong thread tying all the individual flowers into a unified whole, which is the nation. This is a point that cannot be over emphasized.
Federalism of any sort, whether ethnic or otherwise, will need an adequate measure of federal centralism. Here we could examine the American journey on the path of federalism. When the USA emerged as a new nation over two centuries ago, there was reluctance to trust the federal government and the logic of state right had a great deal of support. But over the years the management of an integrated innovative economy has consistently pushed towards a greater role for the federal government that has included the establishment of the central bank( known as the Federal Reserve) in 1913, the expansion of the role of the federal government after the economic depression of the 1930s and recently the massive fiscal and monetary intervention by the federal government to manage what has been labeled the great recession. Indeed, in a federal system centrifugal tendencies that can lead to economic and political anarchy and even disintegration have to be controlled with adequate provision in the constitution so that in a country like Nepal, a Newar or a Khas or for that matter any other group living in an ethnic state other than his own, does not feel discriminated under the law.
Professor Dr Mahendra Lawati is aware of these issues and suggests certain centripetal measures. However, they emerge more as an after thought than as a serious analysis. The important point is that whatever one calls a state -ethnic or non ethnic - the rules of the game both at the provincial and the local level should not politically discriminate any citizen, simply because they do not belong to one particular ethnic group. This is a point that the thematic report passed by the State Restructuring Committee of the Constituent Assembly also ignores. In fact, it even refuses to recognize the Khas as an ethnic group and we have the absurd situation where almost one third of the nation´s population is identified as "Other", as if one third of the population is a statistical discrepancy.
If we were to accept this logiv, I think demographers and social scientist will have to redefine their profession in this country.. It is really surprising that scholars pleading for ethnic federalism fail to notice this anomaly. Worse still, is the fact that in the present model of federalism, the thematic committee report has visualized the leadership of the state or the province can come from only one ethnic community after whom the state is named. Even if we accept this highly controversial and contentious provision for a moment, it is surprising that the same rule does not apply to states where the Khas are the largest minority or even a majority. There is no explanation as to why this particular ethnic group is so ignored. Similarly, if the ethnic leadership criteria is to be enforced then a person belonging to the Dalit community cannot aspire to be the chief minister in any state, both in the hills and Terai because the Dalits are not ‘an ethnicity’ but ‘an oppressed group dispersed all across the nation.’
NOT MUCH TIME AHEAD
We only have a month left to settle the state restructuring issue and promulgate the new constitution. I doubt if we can meet the deadline. The reason why we have failed so far is very simple: The three big parties have been so busy wrangling with each other for ministerial position that they have ignored their commitment to the people. The recent signs, however, are somewhat encouraging and personally I am optimistic that we will come out with some kind of a draft before the deadline, if only for the purpose of discussion.
We do need to think seriously on these issues to make sure that ethnicity focused federalism does not open the doors for new demands of centrifugal nature with little concern for the viability of the national state.
Our march toward creating a national state started sixty years ago when the Ranas were overthrown. The victory then was perhaps too easy. The ruling class really did not put up a serious fight. They left the scene once the British left India in 1947. So, there was a regime change in Nepal but not a revolution. At hindsight, it seems that it was a kind of peripheral transformation that did not change the way the nation was run and managed. The hierarchical structure continued and feudal structures and values remained intact. Once the king took over, we had royal leadership. It was a continuation of the status quo but economic development efforts were needed to legitimize the regime and herein lay the contradiction as outlined eloquently by Samuel Huntington sometime in the early 1970s, wherein discussing the Shahs of Iran, he came to the grim conclusion that the future of monarchy is bleak. Kings, who wanted to lead, argued Huntington in his insightful analysis of the need to pursue modernization to justify their leadership but doing so creates a new awareness among the new generation that undermines the viability of the regime.
This kind of contradiction seems to characterize all authoritarian regimes as we see it unfolding in the Middle East at the moment. Caught in this contradiction, the royal regime in Nepal gave way to multi party democracy. But now we know that it represented a transformation primarily in structures and not in core values. We now have parliament, parties and leaders but they were unable or slow to undertake the kind of reforms that would be necessary to dismantle the built-in structures of injustice and inequity rooted in the polity and the society. But the awareness of the social reality is increasing. To use Professor Mishra´s terminology, Nepal was now going through "ethnist movement II” that was articulating the demand to institutionalize a level playing field in terms of access to resources and opportunities in politics, economy and culture to all ethnic groups and communities all across the nation. Thus, at present, Nepal is in a stage where the frozen ice cube has melted but has not taken a new shape. There is a lot of strength and dynamism in the society but it is still fluid and we are still arguing as to what will be its new shape in the future.
There is apprehension, discomfort and, may be, even excitement about the future. What is needed now is not just change in structures but the institutionalization of transformative vision and values that lead us to a more productive economy with justice and substantive equality under a democratic framework. This is a gigantic task. On the other hand, even if our progress so far remains uneven and sometimes patchy, it still remains impressive and hopeful. In this context, I do not agree with the logic that Nepal´s current project in federalism will create ethnic conflict and violence. The process of cognitive reframing to accommodate change is no longer in doubt in the nation. But this reframing has to go beyond," territorial rights or identity recognition" as outlined forcefully by Lynn Bennett in her paper and also aim for strengthening the Nepali national identity and state.
Similarly, it is hard to disagree with Bennett´s observation that the current territory and ethnic based approach represents a lack of trust on the capability or perhaps even sincerity of the Nepali state to move towards core transformation in the values of institutions governing the state. We do need to think seriously on these issues to make sure that ethnicity focused federalism does not open the doors for new demands of centrifugal nature with little concern for the viability of the national state, something akin to the situation in Nigeria where three ethnic states at the beginning have now increased to thirty six leading virtually to the failure of the federal system.
Writer is the co-chairman of the Rastriya Janasakti Party. The above essay is the second part of the two part series of the remark made at an international symposium on Ethnicity and Federalism organized by Tribhuwan University on April 22-25, 2011
prakash_dr@hotmail.com
Related story
Book review: Analyzing political economy of federalism in Nepal
_20230205122050.jpg)
