The political leaders of Nepal seem to have the tendency to dismiss these challenges by arguing that they have the capacity to make important decisions albeit at the last minute. However, it is very important to understand that decisions made at the last minute do not always work. In regard to designing a federal model and federalizing the whole state structure, the last minute decisions could be less useful and even counterproductive. Given enormous challenges and risks underlying the process of federalizing a unitary state, our political leaders need to think and work in a more systematic manner. A close analysis of the current state of our transition to federalism suggests that the following issues or steps require special focus and attention.
OBJECTIVES
It is obvious that we have not sufficiently discussed what we want to achieve from federalism in future. The arguments in favor of federalism seem to justify the need of the system either in terms of Nepal´s failure to decentralize or in terms of ending discriminations against ethnic and marginalized groups. Both arguments, however convincing, do not sufficiently justify our need to go federal. Federalism is not an alternative to decentralization: Decentralization and/or devolution are inherent in a federal system. Similarly, federalism may provide opportunities for ending the existing discriminations, but the system in itself is not the guarantee of the end of all forms of discriminations. Devolution of powers and the end of discriminations require changes in our state structure which may go beyond the task of building a federal state. The objectives of Nepal´s transformation to federalism need to be futuristic, and they must reflect our desire to build a democratic state with equal rights and opportunities to all irrespective of caste, ethnicity, gender and region.
PRINCIPLES
The Interim Constitution of Nepal proposes a few principles as crucial in the process of designing the federal system. They are ´democracy´, ´autonomy´, ´sovereignty´ ´unity´ and ´integrity´. These principles are important as they reflect the essence of a democratic state. However, the process of adopting a federal model requires consensus on a variety of principles which are important for building a democratic society. Most of the federal democracies, for instance, are structured around the principle of subsidiarity meaning tasks need to be handled by the lowest competent unit. Similarly, equality of citizens and protection and preservation of fundamental rights could be some other principles guiding our future federal system. In addition, Nepal´s policymakers also need to decide what economic model will be adopted in future. The issue of citizenship is yet another issue related to the principles of a democratic state, and the future constitution need to clarify the meaning of a citizen´s provincial and national identities.
BOUNDARIES
The task of drawing provincial boundaries seems to be the most contentious issue in Nepal´s effort to design a federal state. Part of this problem lies in our failure to set clear objectives and principles in regard to our federal system. The boundaries have become a difficult issue also due to the nature of Nepal´s diversity and underdevelopment as Nepal´s economic activities are intensely concentrated in certain areas while diversity is extremely complex due to mixed ethnic settlements. Nepal´s geographical diversity, poor infrastructure and diversity in people´s livelihood strategies across regions add to the challenges of creating provinces based on a certain criterion. The task of drawing boundaries has become even more difficult due to differences in the understanding of federalism among different political parties.
Federalism is not an alternative to decentralization: Decentralization and/or devolution are inherent in a federal system. Similarly, federalism may provide opportunities for ending the existing discriminations, but the system in itself is not the guarantee of the end of all forms of discriminations.
However, political parties cannot escape from their responsibility of drawing boundaries, which subsequently means creation of new provinces. In this context, some assumptions could be useful. Firstly, Nepal´s future provinces need to be created on the basis of a set of criteria rather than focusing exclusively on one or two. This is vital for the sustainability of a province. Secondly, Nepal cannot possibly sustain a large number of provinces due to the cost involved in the establishment of provincial governments. The proposal for 14 provinces, therefore, seems unsuitable for the case of Nepal. Finally, drawing provinces is the matter of political decision-making. Therefore, the policymakers need to concentrate on the ways of building people´s ownership over the federal model rather than spending too much time in seeking approval for it from the social elites and/or subject matter experts.
TRANSITION
This is the area which has received little or no attention from the political leadership. It is unfortunate that our debates and discussions pay little or no attention to how existing structures and institutions will be adjusted into the federal design once the federal constitution is approved by the CA. The lacuna between the fall of the old system and the rise of the new system could be potentially dangerous. In fact, managing transition is sometimes as difficult as writing a new constitution. If not carefully managed, the transition to federalism could be the ground for endless conflicts. The task of educating people on the new political culture and restructured service delivery mechanisms demands careful planning and implementation. The political parties must devise effective policies, principles and mechanisms to manage transition and this has to be done before the new constitution receives its shape.
The task of creating federal units and designing a federal state structure cannot move forward without building consensus on the objectives and principles of federalism. The lack of objectives and principles are creating endless hurdles in our constitution-making process as many of the current deadlocks seem to originate from the lack of consensus on why and how we need to transform Nepal into a federal system. The difficult task of creating the future constituent units can be made simple by setting clear objectives and principles. The vague and confusing language so far used by the political parties in justifying the need of federalism can provide little help to the process. The objectives and principles must be precise and meaningful and they must be based on the situation of Nepal.
Writer, an anthropologist, is working on issues concerning governance reform and restructuring
sanjeev.pokharel@gmail.com
Related story
Book review: Analyzing political economy of federalism in Nepal
