As federalism appeared to an attractive potential mechanism to correct the long-standing inequities faced by the marginalized communities, Nepal’s political parties hurriedly incorporated federalism in the interim constitution, and it gradually became a fait accompli for Nepal.
Unfortunately, the real and intense debate, which such a big proposed change in the state structure requires, has begun only in the late hours of the constitution drafting process. Due to the pressure of the deadline, the political expediency and raw emotions have become the sole drivers for the agenda of federalism.
Federalism by disaggregation, as is being done in Nepal, is an unusual situation, as most of the federated nations in the world have evolved through the aggregation of willing units. Nepal has more than 240 years of unitary history, the longest in South Asia, and disaggregating it into separate units must be taken very seriously and handled with utmost caution. Geographical division of an existing nation-state can have unpredictable results. We have recently seen that within a year of partitioning Sudan, war has broken out between the two parts, which are seeking to control oil fields along the common border.
As sufficient preparatory work has not been completed to finalize the constitution before the deadline, one possibility is to only have only the principles of federalism enshrined in the new constitution, and allow two years to actually design the provinces on the basis of political consensus. For the groups, who rightfully feel they have been unfairly treated by the state in the past, and wish to have the situation corrected through autonomy, and separate geographical jurisdictions, a well thought-out state structure, which is agreed upon by the vast majority of the Nepali people and their leaders, will provide a more stable, sustainable and amenable federal system. If done in haste, and if there is a sense of enmity, resentment and adversarial relation among the future states, and among people within a state, it will make every state a loser in the long run. There is a real possibility that a badly designed and hastily created federal system can bring calamity to Nepal.
STRONG CENTER
This author believes that, in a federal Nepal, there should be a strong center such as in India (where, in crisis, the center can bring a state under central rule) and the US (where the federal government has many pre-emptive powers over states). With more 92 languages and 100 ethnicities, Nepal is a hyper-pluralistic and diverse nation for its relatively small size. If Nepal has a weak center with only limited powers over the states, the country may remain in a permanent state of discord, or even head towards disintegration. Only a strong central government can provide the necessary core and centripetal energy to guarantee national integrity and protect Nepal’s nationhood. While many local functions should be decentralized to the states and lower levels of local governments, higher political powers including that of foreign relations, international trade, defense, security, water resources and national transportation should reside with the center. Further, the center should have the final arbitration authority in case of conflicts among states.
VIABLE STATES
Population: As Nepal is a relatively small country geographically and population-wise, the number of states or provinces should be small, five to seven at the most. In such case, each state will have an average population of 4 million to 5.5 million. Such a size will provide a reasonable economy of scale to financially support the state government and its bureaucracy. The national capital and unique places such as Lumbini and Everest region can be made federal territories, such as District of Columbia, New Delhi and Canberra. In a poor country, the administrative burden will be disproportionately high for too many states. Some rich countries have states with smaller population, but Nepal cannot afford such luxury. For example, even with double per capita income of Nepal, the average population of an Indian state is about 40 million, more than the entire population of Nepal.
Ecology: The states should have reasonable size of geographical expanse and stock of natural resources, which include water, agricultural land, forests, wetlands and bio-diversity. Ideally, a state comprising of hills, plain and mountains with a common watershed, and varied bio-diversity will be more viable economically and more efficient ecologically. Such states can also benefit from the synergy between various ecological and climatic zones, and will be less prone to encounter big losses from natural calamities. Further, a diverse ecological system will help induce a propensity of collaboration among the residents of a state, and more importantly, engender an enhanced resilience against the impacts of natural hazards.
Economy: Perhaps, the most important criteria for a state are that of economic viability. Ideally states with external boundaries with both India and China (Tibet) will have a potential to benefit more from external trade and exposure. As a land-locked country, the land transit facility and access is crucial for Nepal. If each Nepali state can organize a dry port with India and China, they will enjoy enhanced potential for prosperity. A diverse economic base that taps into agriculture, horticulture, forest, and herbal products, hydropower, tourism, mining, industry, and varied climatic zones will thrive much better than a state that has limited diversity of economic base. The prosperity of California is an excellent example of how a well diversified natural resource base can quickly propel economic development.
DECENTRALIZATION
The very idea of federalism in Nepal has been driven by the desire for power decentralization, autonomy and preservation of identity of the various social groups. This should be achieved by ensuring adequate representation of the disadvantaged and minority groups both at the state and federal levels. Ethnic or tribe councils may be designed to advance such agendas. For example, the Darjeeling Hill Council within the state of West Bengal in India promotes the well-being of the hill people within the state. Tribal councils and local governments in the US and Canada provide autonomy and limited self-governance to the native Indian population.
Non-territorial federalism that includes affirmative action, quotas and councils for disadvantaged can create a just society.
Each Nepali state should have in its symbols that represent the culture, geography and history pertaining specifically to that state. The practice of federalism can be more fruitful by means of promoting cultures, traditions and aspirations of various groups in the state and national system rather than just by creating separate geographical boundaries. True decentralization can be achieved by delegating many powers and authorities to the districts such that powers are entrusted to the counties in the US and in parts of Canada. The counties in the US, for example, have fairly autonomous exercise of law enforcement, courts, taxation, criminal prosecution, healthcare, environmental management and local infrastructure. If similar autonomies and power delegations are provided to each district in Nepal, many ethnic groups will feel that the districts (which generally have a majority of one ethnicity) will serve them directly and will represent them politically.
CONCLUSIONS
The author believes that the aspiration for federalism by the disadvantaged and local communities in Nepal (Madhesi, Janjati, Dalits, Tharu, Muslims, Christians and others) has been to achieve identity, dignity, cultural respect, local power and, more importantly, for economic prosperity. Let us not be boxed by the assumption that only a geographical division can make this possible. Delineation of state boundaries should achieve the population balance, economic viability, and ecological diversity. With proper practice of non-territorial federalism, which includes affirmative action, limited time quotas, and councils for minorities and disadvantaged groups can be the most efficient way of creating a more just society in Nepal.
The author is a Faculty Associate at Arizona State University, US
ambika@alum.mit.edu
Related story
Possibility of work-from-home in Nepal
