The upcoming election is getting a near blanket coverage in all media platforms as we enter the final stretch of the November 19 vote. But this media obsession is unmatched by people’s enthusiasm. Not that the vast majority doesn’t want to vote, or have given up on political parties, despite their myriad shortcomings in the last five-odd years. Most of the registered voters are still likely to cast their ballots. Yet, as they head to the polling booth, a question will niggle them: Will my vote translate into a legitimate, peaceful way out of the current crisis? One of the mains reasons for their skepticism is the seemingly intractable issue of federalism. Federalism was discussed ad nauseam during the four years of the last Constituent Assembly and continues to be the most important (and the most contentious) issue heading into CA II. Most people have strong views about federalism, views which are often divided along caste and ethnic lines. [break]
The major parties are only too happy to exploit these (mis)perceptions and biases. Nepali Congress and CPN-UML have proposed separate federal models in their manifestos, but both are deliberately vague on names and demarcations. Most Madheshi parties have revived the ‘One Madhesh’ agenda. UCPN (Maoist)’s proposed federal map is relatively clearer, with 11 provinces to be augmented with autonomous regions and protected areas. RPP-Nepal is against the federal agenda altogether. No one really knows what the (confused) electorate wants; hence they have fallen back on populist options tailored to their narrow vote banks. Yet this lack of clarity and uncompromising stands on the most important issue going into the election could invite trouble. The situation is so bad that any debate on federalism invariably turns personal as emotions quickly override reason. In this climate, it will be extremely hard to come to a negotiated settlement in the future, whatever the outcome of the new CA vote.
People are slowly beginning to accept that federal restructuring of the country is inevitable. But they are unsure how this might be achieved amicably. For there to be a constitution, the major parties, chiefly NC and CPN-UML on one hand and UCPN (Maoist) and Madhesi parties on the other, must be willing to compromise. The issue is not how many federal states there should be in Nepal (the tiny Switzerland has 26 while the humongous Canada has 13), but on which number there can be broad agreement. It is our earnest hope that at least the major constituents of the last Constituent Assembly are working together to come up with a viable federal model behind the scenes. The outcome of the new CA election will be important. But irrespective of the composition of the new CA, the only way we can have a viable constitution is if a sizable political constituency can see eye to eye on federalism. Since it will be the same political forces represented in the new CA (albeit in different strengths), there is no reason to wait for another eleventh hour negotiation in the new CA. This, again, is not a suggestion to subvert the sovereign CA by working out everything in advance behind closed doors, but to give it something substantial to work with.
Related story
Beyonce wax figure touched up after fans say it's too white
