Making
Nepal a Federal Union
Dr.
Ambika P. Adhikari
As federalism appeared to be an attractive and 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.
Limited Debate and Homework
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
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 the oil
fields along the common border.
State Restructuring: Serious Task
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 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 Needed
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 USA, 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.
Criteria for Creating 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 the 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 to Complement Federalism
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 in the country. This should be
achieved by ensuring adequate representation of the disadvantaged and minority
groups both at the state and federal organs. 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 functions to promote 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.
Each Nepali state should have in its
symbols elements 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 Nepal 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 in the ways such powers
are entrusted to the counties in the US and 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 a 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.
---
Dr. Ambika P Adhikari is a Faculty
Associate at Arizona State University, USA, and can be reached at
Ambika@alum.mit.edu.
No comments:
Post a Comment