The Federal Model
The feeling that federalism with the central government as nothing more than a weak coordinator of autonomous provinces that have the “right to self-determination” is somewhat similar to the ideas of the 13 provinces that originally came together to form the United States. The original notion of federalism in the US reflected a deep suspicion of a centralized authority. The federal government then could not even maintain a standing army without the consent of all the states. In Nepal, the situation is, of course, different. Instead of states coming together, we are creating new states or provinces but the underlying idea of federalism seems to emphasize a weak central government that must maintain a hands-off policy in the affairs of the state. However, history has shown that a federal model of this nature has its own pitfalls.
Even in the US, a country where federalism is considered as a successful model for nation-building, the theme of weak central government had to face a lot of opposition as impractical and unworkable right from the beginning. In fact, some very prominent personalities of that era known as the anti-federalists thought for a time being that the cooperation model of the original 13 states was simply dysfunctional. They were frustrated with the then political thinking on federalism and even went to the other extreme of proposing a strong national government. This debate finally led to a compromise where the federal government was given the power to recruit an army and to appoint federal officials. However, the institution of slavery was considered an affair of the state. It was a vital compromise that ultimately became one of the major causes of civil war a century later.
Even a country like the US that stresses state rights has come to realize that federalism without a strong center is an invitation to chaos. A successful musical orchestra needs a conductor who can direct and coordinate the various sounds into music that soothes the heart.
The American federal journey has been a continuous movement from weak federalism to federal centralism. There have been hiccups along the way but the trend remains unmistakable in response to growing social and economic complexities of a dynamic society. Just to mention a few: In response to “wild cat banking” of the 19th century, the federal government established a central bank in 1913 known as the Federal Reserve Bank. It signaled the beginning of a central institution for monetary policy. Similarly, the depression in the 1930s led to the expansion of several federal-level institutions in important areas of economic and social life of the nation. This trend was challenged in the era of neo-liberal economics in the later part of the 20th century but after the near depression of the economy in 2008, new national-level regulations in finance and banking seem to be making a strong comeback. In essence, the US remains now a country-based on federal centralism, something vastly different from its original structure where the focus was to have a weak center.
In the case of India, the logic of a centralized federal structure was never in doubt. During the Nehru era, the theme was to have a strong center committed to take leadership in carrying out a wide range of functions for the social and economic development of the nation. However, the ability of the central government to deliver on its promises was limited. Expansion of state responsibilities without a corresponding increase in its delivery strength led to a fiscal imbalance and ultimately to a situation of virtual bankruptcy by the late 1980s. It was then that the content of the federal centralism began to change. Regional considerations gained new importance in national politics and the role of the organized corporate sector gained new recognition. The lesson of the Indian experience is that a mismatch between central authority and central responsibility can lead to near stagnation. It was this realization that changed the content of federal functions in India and pushed the country on the path of economic liberalization that started in the last decade of the 20th century. The model of federal centralism remains intact but the government now tries to focus on a limited number of activities designed to overcome the binding constraints to growth so as to encourage savings, investments and employment in the private sector.
Federal Centralism: The Case of Nepal
In the context of Nepal, we are not clear about both the form and content of federalism. On the one hand, there is the cry for ethnic-based federalism with “the right of self-determination” while there are other voices harboring deep suspicion on the very idea of federalism for a small country like Nepal. The largest party in the parliament, the Maoist party, has been most vocal in advancing the logic of ethnic federalism and the “right of self-determination”. Slogans of this nature may be helpful in swinging people on one side for a short-term political gain. However, from a long-term perspective based on the vision of a nation that is politically united and economically strong, the Maoist strategy is both inopportune and unfortunate. What the Maoists are encouraging in a very shortsighted manner is a situation of increasing conflict between and among the provinces and the center in the name of autonomy and “the right of self-determination” Their penchant for a short-term political gain that relies heavily on the ethnic card ignores the demographic dynamics of Nepal and can easily fuel conflict between the local and the national. The fact remains that even a country like the US that stresses state rights has come to realize that federalism without a strong center is an invitation to chaos. A successful musical orchestra needs a conductor who can direct and coordinate the various sounds into music that soothes the heart and reflects the human desire for peace and happiness. But this is not possible if the conductor is weak and does not command the respect of the musicians.
In the context of changes that we are going through, it is but natural that both the centrifugal and centripetal forces will emerge. To an extent this is but natural. However, to hope that federalism without central power will somehow achieve a dynamic equilibrium between these two forces in favor of unity and stability is like conducting an orchestra without any musical score. Both the American and Indian experience show that a weak central government without the power and institutions to handle the complexities of a modernizing economy and social consciousness encourages the rise of centrifugal forces derailing the meaning of local autonomy and in Nepal’s case the idea of “the right of self-determination” into anarchy, chaos and even destructive violence and war. It took a destructive civil war in the US to establish the fact that in matters of major socio-economic dimension, the central government cannot be ignored.
If we are to make federalism work for Nepal, it is important that the power balance between the local-and the national-level institutions in the constitution allows the federal government to perform the task of coordination and control effectively so that centrifugal forces are kept in check while providing expanded opportunities for local initiative and leadership. The ability to maintain this balance is in essence the logic of federal centralism. Even in the best of circumstances, it is not easy. The Maoists, with their slogans of ethnic federalism and “the right of self-determination” that can mean different things to different people, seem determined to make it even more thorny and difficult.
(Writer is the co-chairman of the Rastriya Janashakti Party.)
Related story
Province 2 ready to retaliate if federal govt obstructs exercis...
