Federalism was a long-awaited agenda in Nepal since the major political change in 1951 raised by various politicians including Gajendra Narayan Singh and other Madhesi leaders but it did not grab political attention. Later it was taken up by the then Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). However, it was not concretely stated in the 12-point understanding reached between them and the Seven Party Alliance on 22 Nov, 2005. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) too had not explicitly made any mention of federalism—it only highlighted the need for progressive restructuring of the state. Article 3.5 of the CPA emphasized ending the existing centralized and unitary state system and restructuring of the state to make it an inclusive, democratic, progressive system.
When Interim Constitution 2007 was promulgated without any mention of federal provisions, Madhesi leaders burnt copies of it and blamed major political parties for their noncommittal outlook. The Madhesi movement resulted in amendment through incorporation of the term ‘federalism’ in 12 July, 2008. It states, “Accepting the aspirations of indigenous ethnic groups, and the people of the backward and other regions, and the people of Madhes, for autonomous provinces, Nepal shall be a Federal Democratic Republic” The amendment further states that, “The provinces shall be autonomous, with full rights. The Constituent Assembly (CA) shall determine the number, boundary, names and structures of the autonomous provinces and the distribution of powers and resources, while maintaining the sovereignty, unity and integrity of Nepal”.
Nepal’s political history demonstrates it failed as a unitary state to address the needs and aspirations of Nepal’s multiethnic, multi-religious and multicultural society. Hence, people are hopeful that the federal system will address the challenges (of building a democratic, inclusive and economically strong state) faced by Nepali society which were left out by the unitary governing system. Federal structures created by a new process must involve people in nation-building process and ensure sharing of power. Regrettably, the way the federal debate is being facilitated and the process of state restructuring is being managed, it may not lead to desired result of addressing exclusion, stability, democracy, achieving economic growth and prosperity and peace. Instead, the events so far could potentially lead to communal tension, inter-ethnic conflict, violence and insecurity.
Inequality and lack of access to resources and basic services generate “feelings of injustice”, which give rise to a rebellious response. In such a situation, conflict and violence follow naturally. The federal political system in Nepal should not provide space for malignant “feeling of injustice”, going by the nation’s history.
It seems that proponents of ethnic federalism want to reverse the past system in their own favor, which could lead to confrontation and tension. Reversal of roles will not make past mistakes right—it will create more tensions.
The ethnic dimensions, during transition from a unitary to a federal system, are very strong. Maoists strategically utilized the ethnic “feeling of injustice” to expand their ‘people’s war’ by promising to establish an ethnicity-based federal system which they practiced during war time. They benefited greatly from the ethnic polity during the CA election. Now, to fulfill the promises and to keep ethnic voters intact Maoists are not only proposing ethnic federalism but also going so far as to claim right to self-determination (even right to secession). Once Maoists opted for ethnic federalism other political parties like CPN-UML became insecure about their own ethnic voters and consequently opted for same tactics. Hence, the debate on federalism became a deliberate orchestration of vested political interests rather than of the country’s long term stability.
Ethnic radicalization has become so strong that whosoever disagrees on ethnic federalism are viewed by Maoists and ethnic leaders/supporters as anti-federal, anti-change and supporters of the feudal system. Consequently there is less space for constructive debate on merits and demerits of ethnic federalism. Anti-caste radicalism is now being deliberately developed on the pretext of an exclusionary past. It seems that proponents of ethnic federalism want to reverse the past system in their own favor, which could lead to confrontation and tension. Reversal of roles will not make past mistakes right—it will create more tensions.
Demands of ethnic groups are too one-sided, deny co-existence, seek special privileges such as prior rights and impose ethnic supremacy over other people (e.g. naming provinces after ethnic groups) and they even threaten to go for violence if these demands are not. Hence, the challenge for the political decision makers is to make sure that federalism will not become a perennial source of communal tension and ethnic conflict.
Federalism can be both a source of conflict and a means of resolving them. But it is not a magic wand that can solve every contradiction existing in Nepali society. Wrongful handling of the implementation of federalism can lead to civil war and disintegration of the country as proved by several world experiences in the recent past.
Global experiences of ethnic federalism and current daily realities of Nepal have clearly demonstrated that opting for ethnic federalism could potentially lead to protracted conflict and serve as a perennial source of instability. It is very hard to understand why some of the groups want to get privileges at the cost of others (e.g. naming states, prior rights, etc.), a thing that used to be the prime source of conflict in the past.
A retaliatory mental attitude (Chhetri-Brahmin elites had exploited ethnic groups in the past and therefore ethnic groups have to retaliate now by imposing conditions likes prior rights or reserving powerful posts only for certain ethnic groups, etc.) and vested political interests (to keep their ethnic vote banks intact) could potentially cause social tension, communal disharmony and ethnic conflict.
Providing privileges to certain groups and excluding others is not only conceptually similar to the Panchayat System but also against fundamental human rights principles. Hence, political decision makers must consider the potential risk and danger of rooting for ethnic federalism. One of the best ways to address it is by naming states after historical places, mountains, rivers and geography, to ensure equal rights for all and by making provisions of affirmative action for certain years/decades to address inequality issues.
Radicalization is easy, as some political parties have successfully proved, but addressing the effects of such radicalization can prove very costly not only for these parties but also for the nation as a whole. It might already be too late by the time leaders realize the cost of such radicalizations. And once political parties panic and start using force it can easily result in civil war as showcased by several global experiences.
The success or failure of federalism depends upon the degree of public acceptance of the form of federalism adopted and the degree of implementation of the basic values and process of federalism. Extreme radicalization of issues and undermining the existence and identity of others will only create conflict and make the federal system dysfunctional.
Recognition of multiple identities, accommodation of the needs and interests of others, and understanding and sensitivity should be the focus and not imposing language, culture and values over other groups. Additionally, respecting pluralism and individuality are some of the fundamental elements required, particularly at the beginning, for an operational federalism. If political decision makers fail to address these issues conflict is inevitable in the new federal Nepal.
Related story
Strengthening Indigenous Rights: Key to Peace and Prosperity in...
