Multiculturalism and ethnic diversity, as in many other countries, are an important reality in Nepal. Much has already been said on restructuring the country as a federation of states, with each federal state recognized on the basis of ethnic identity. There is a wide consensus on creating a Nepali nation state comprising of many federal units but the debate on the question of identity and the delineation and number of such units is still in full swing.
Federalism: The concept
In the formation of a new nation-state, it is paramount to bring together different cultures and ethnicities by tapping on their general will to co-exist as equal partners on a common ground. Federalism underlines this concept of coming together and accepting the common existence as equal partners at the center by all ethnic groups, while still retaining, under a common national political agenda, their separate social, political and cultural voice with due recognition of their identity at their respective peripheral or federal units. Federalism, primarily, is about convergence towards the center of willing partners with different identities but with a common goal of contributing collectively to nationhood.
ILLUSTRATION: THECOVECOMMUNITY.BLOGSPOT.COM
All federal units are required to have an equal relationship with the center and with one another. In the absence of such a will to coexist as equal partners, the natural propensity of the larger ethnic groups to gain dominance over the smaller ones is bound to result in frequent ethnic conflicts and roadblocks in the task of nation building. This kind of dominance, if it were to occur, would defeat the very purpose of federalism.
Nepali context
Exclusion of ethnic minorities from the socio-politico-economic process along with ethnic injustices, and at times, overt suppression of certain ethnic groups, was the feature of absolute monarchy. The state, then, promoted a national culture centered on the tradition of absolute monarchy and buttressed by Hindu rituals and laws that negated meaningful roles for the dalits, minority religions and the indigenous tribes. Certain ethnic groups were either excluded or poorly represented in important institutions such as the police and the army. By some counts this kind of discrimination still prevails. Such discriminations work to promote alienation, segregation and finally the fragmentation of the state, as witnessed in the heart of Europe as recently as 1990s.
Big variations within ethnic groups must also be taken into account when considering socio-politico-economic exclusion. Aristocracies and elites within the ethnic groups enjoyed much better positions in the national mainstream. It was the monarch who handpicked a member from tribal or ethnic aristocracies for token representation and permitted him/her a guided-role in national or regional politics. Services in important sectors such as health and education remained mostly confined to the central regions of the country, inhabited mostly by the ruling castes.
This mono-ethnic culture began to break down at a considerable pace after the advent of democracy and the promulgation of new constitution that explicitly declared the country multiethnic in 1990. With the abolition of monarchy in 2008 and governance under the interim constitution, the country has seen significant strengthening of the voice of the previously oppressed and marginalized groups. Wide variation in political and economic opportunities determined by class, caste and ethnicity still exists and needs urgent correction and the change has to be institutionalized sooner rather than later if we are to avert fragmentation of the country.
Federalism: The need
Why do we need a federal mode of governance and what are its advantages and disadvantages? A number of advantages can be cited and again some drawbacks of the system need to be clearly examined and solutions sought.
A nation-state under federalism can be expected to create a ground for inclusive national politics, diminish inequity in the distribution of national resources among the citizens, promote a decentralized process of development and, by the same token, an environment of competitive participation by the diverse groups and ethnicities for an enhanced quality of life of all its citizens. But again, we also need to sit back and ponder for a moment: federalism alone cannot do it all. We all have to ensure and commit ourselves to non-discrimination within each federal unit, create a just modality for equitable sharing of resources by the federal units and resolve to abide by this commitment. If we are to exist as a nation, we cannot, as a federal unit, claim monopoly on the federal resources.
Fragmentation of a nation-state does not always have to be in terms of newly drawn territorial divisions; ethnic and class conflicts brought on by discrimination and injustice essentially play the same role by creating deep divisions even without visible physical lines of division. These have to give way to ethnic harmony and mutually supportive coexistence through the single most important change in the mindset of the State and the people at large: that all men and women are born equal and deserve the same level of respect in the society. Adoption of federalism under the principle of multi-ethnic coexistence, a meaningful devolution of governance from the center and equitable distribution of power among all ethnic groups through their proportional representation in the federal as well as the central legislature, executive and judiciary is expected to institutionalize this change both in the federal units and in the center. The ongoing national dialogue must strive to ensure just and proportional representation of all ethnic groups without discrimination.
Ethnic identity
The need to recognize the identity and the local, regional and national role of each and every ethnic group in socio-politico-economic affairs is indubitable. A thorough scrutiny is however needed on the pros and cons of identifying a federal state on the basis of mono- or multi-ethnicity. In our context, we have to bear in mind a few basic facts in examining this aspect of federalism. There are many more ethnic groups in the country than the conceivable number of federal states. The country has had a long experience with mono-ethnicity at the national level and has paid a heavy price. The moot question in everybody’s mind has to be: will this occur at the federal level if we opt for a mono-ethnic federal state and deny due recognition and role to other ethnicities in that state?
This is first of a two-part article. The second part will be published tomorrow
Related story
OCE mulling SEE question banks after multiple errors in questio...
