Disappointing

In the end, the State Restructuring Commission (SRC) has become a big joke. We are disappointed with the selection of its members as we are with the ad-hoc process that led to its resurrection from its death-bed. The interim constitution had envisioned the SRC as a body of experts who can rise above partisan politics and recommend restructuring of the unitary state in a way that will address both the identity and developmental aspirations of a diverse Nepali populace.



If the 601 CA members, who are divided along party lines and come with enormous baggage, even bigotry, were best suited to decide the fate of federal Nepal, the interim constitution would not have made a provision for the SRC in the first place. Ironically, the SRC has become a victim of partisan, nefarious politics since the very beginning.



If the parties had followed the spirit of the interim constitution, they would have formed the SRC immediately after the promulgation of the interim constitution and long before the election of the Constituent Assembly so that it could have fostered informed debate about state restructuring inside and outside the CA. The parties, distracted by bickering over power, kept on deferring the SRC and had even decided to replace it with an expert panel.



Thanks to their extraordinary ability to disagree on almost everything, the parties, after failing to agree on the terms of reference for the expert panel, eventually made a U-turn and embraced the SRC as a saving grace. But the political parties, clumsy as they are in learning any lessons, have once again failed to uphold the spirit of the SRC— formation of a non-partisan panel of experts who can make rational and authoritative suggestions to the CA.



And they have ended up nominating either their own cadres or so-called intellectuals affiliated with their parties, individuals who don’t seem to have any clue about federalism and how it works.



Scanning the profiles of the eight members nominated by the parties we find that only a few of them have worked in the area of federalism or have any expert knowledge of related issues. Frankly speaking, many CA members from across the parties, who have worked in the CA State Restructuring Committee, are far better versed in the key issues of federalism and have better ideas about what kind federal setup best suits Nepal.



Selection of mediocre people, leaving out far more competent experts on issues of geography, demography, economics and political science, as members of the commission has already undermined its legitimacy and the political parties’ failure to pick the coordinator to lead the commission will leave it further handicapped. We won’t be surprised if the commission fails to even come up with any meaningful recommendations for the CA.

Related story

Human, trade union rights situation of education workers disapp...