In the lead up to the construction of the new “national identity”, leaders of various groups are echoing that an ethnically-defined federalist structure is the only progressive alternative to the current ethnocentric socio-political order. While it may be true that an ethnically-defined federal structure will transfer socio-economic and political power from Singha Durbar to politicians of a few other ethnic groups – an obvious improvement over the status quo – it falls far short of a true transfer of power to the people. Two issues stand out: Firstly, will minorities within such ethnic states have their fundamental rights guaranteed not only in paper but also in practice? And, secondly, do we not have a better alternative than to live in centrally defined ethno-political boundaries?
If some variant of the ethnic-federation being proposed were to come into existence, power will only be transferred from one Singha Durbar in Kathmandu to 10 or 15 “Singha Durbars” across the country. An ethno-political federal setup will largely be an empowerment of ethnic politicians and of the majority ethnic group (especially the group elites) within the state – this system falls far short of a true empowerment of common citizens and of minorities that will be without a state of their own. Can we be certain that fundamental rights of minorities within these ethnic states will truly be respected? Can we be certain that those minority ethnicities (within the states) will not have to wage another “revolution” in the future to create a state of their own? Are we going to witness our own version of the “Gorkhaland” struggle?
An ethnic state will presumably have some form of cultural and linguistic traits as being “official” – traits presumably representing the majority ethnicity. The majority ethnic groups will also control the halls of power and be in command of the economic machinery of the state. Something tells me that a repeat of what happened at the national level, in terms of ethnic struggle for socio-political autonomy, will be emulated by minorities at the state level in the future.
The second issue is the poverty of imagination that has plagued our politicians (shocking, isn’t it?). Notwithstanding minor differences vis–à–vis the structure of a future federation, all parties are in absolute unison regarding one issue: The political boundaries of future states will be centrally defined rigid borders chosen at the whims of the politicians themselves. Even if all the ethnic groups were to have a state of their own, there can be no certainty that future conflicts will not arise out of differences over other biological, social, economic or political traits. This can lead to a situation where a minority group can be in a permanent state of disillusionment, despite officially being franchised.
For instance, what happens if the majority votes in favor of public stoning of everybody sporting Dingo boots? Apart from being grossly unjust, it would also alienate Dingo fans from “mainstream” society, even though the law was democratically concocted. In an extreme case, it could even lead to a violent Dingo revolution. This absurd example only serves to point that majority decisions are not always the most sensible, and can lead to alienation and disgruntlement in some cases while leading to rights violation in others.
A possible solution perhaps to a future “Dingo Problem” would be the creation of flexible state boundaries. By “flexible boundaries” I mean that state boundaries are not permanently fixed in the constitution. This implies that a group dissatisfied with a state government will have the legal power to form a different state or an “autonomous” territory within any state. It would provide a channel for disillusioned groups to legally and peacefully vent out their frustration by forming a separate state or political territory where people with similar backgrounds or ideologies can have a system that befits their beliefs. Why force people into living in a state that they might perceive to be, say, corrupt, unjust or tyrannical? Do we absolutely have to carbon-copy the “majority rules” dogma that is in place in other countries?
Sure, flexible state boundaries are no panacea in themselves. Like any other system, there are issues with it as well. For instance, what is the minimum number of people required to declare autonomy? What if all the rich folks huddle into one place and declare themselves to be “autonomous” of the poor? There are further complications considering usage of natural resources – which are often restricted to a certain locale – and issues pertaining to power-sharing with the central government.
Are there problems with this concept that need addressing? Absolutely! The challenge would to be work out solutions to such problems associated with having flexible state boundaries. Why then, you ask, do I talk about flexible boundaries without first having the solution to all the problems associated with it? It is because this article is not meant to be a cheerleader for the cause, but rather to be a call for an open discourse on political systems other than those currently under discussion.
There is no denying that the time has come for a fundamental shift of the power relations between “upper”-caste hill folks and the rest of the country but there is also no denying that the time is also ripe for a fundamental change of power relation between the state and its people. The idea of creating flexible boundaries will probably be opposed in earnest by leaders of various ethnic and national parties. That would not be surprising since they are the ones who will “lose” the most if such a system were put in place. A breakaway faction would result in the political leadership having to relinquish some political and economic power. It will perhaps even be opposed as trying to sabotage ethnic unity, a claim that rings hollow even upon cursory analysis. In the end, it is an inevitable fact of life that politicians will invariably resist empowering common citizens if it comes at a cost to their own power. But, at the end of the day, it will be those common citizens who have to weigh the pros and cons of different political systems and chart the course of this nation.
Related story
New leadership elected in CAN Federation
-1200x560-1779450784.webp)
