There is a growing demand for a federal structure of governance in Nepal, as opposed to the unitary system backed by the main political parties. The demand for federalism is driven by both ethnic and regional concerns, as well as the resentment against the elite which controls Nepal's politics from Kathmandu. Will this become yet another stumbling block to Constitution-making?
On Wednesday, Nepal's squabbling law-makers failed to meet yet another deadline to elect a Prime Minister, further straining an already tenuous four-year long peace process. Earlier in the month, President Ram Baran Yadav had issued a January 21 deadline for the election of a new Prime Minister — Nepal has been under caretaker Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal, who resigned from his position as premier in June 2010 — which was then extended to January 26 on the request of Nepal's three major political parties and 25 other fringe parties.
Unfortunately, even after countless deadlines and several party meetings, there has been no agreement on who will lead Nepal's Government. In a last bid effort to resolve the crisis, the Constituent Assembly, on Tuesday, approved changes in the rules for electing a new Prime Minister, now making it mandatory for all members to participate in the election. Earlier, several leaders had abstained from voting which ultimately led to 16 rounds of inconclusive elections.
However, as the political process drags on in Kathmandu, and reports of a possible Maoist Government trickle in, it is imperative to take a step back and look at the larger picture in Nepal, where conflicting ethnic and regional interests, pitted against vested political ones, have scarred the nation's sense of identity.
Nepal encompasses enormous diversity and is home to people from several castes and regional ethnicities. Unfortunately, a vast majority of its diverse population has also suffered a long history of legal discrimination based on caste, ethnicity and regional identity, and modern Nepal is still reeling under its after-effects.
The ongoing demand for federalism has thus emerged as a powerful symbol for a more inclusive political agenda that will guarantee proportional ethnic representation and recognise the country's ethnic and cultural diversity. In Nepal, federalism means more than just the decentralisation of political power. It includes significant measures to prevent further minority exclusion such as the reservation of Government seats, preferential rights to natural resources for the indigenous people as well as several symbolic measures, such as the naming of Provinces after the dominant minority. Federalism and the consequent restructuring of the state was an integral element of the 2006 peace deal and in 2007, it was also incorporated in the interim Constitution after violent protests in the Terai region. Nonetheless, the demand for federalism is a contentious issue that still faces significant opposition from those who support a strong unitary state.
Unsurprisingly, these include the Brahmins and the Chhetris, the socio-politically dominant groups who form an overwhelming majority of the elite in power. They fear losing their place in national politics and oppose the redefinition of the country's identity on ethnic lines. The elite typically has little understanding of how terribly skewed the balance in Nepali politics has been in its favour all these years and the resentment that has built up against it due to the deeply discriminatory nature of Nepali society.
Nonetheless, structured opposition to federalism is minimal, even varied, amongst these groups. Only a few parties belonging to the political Left completely oppose federal restructuring; others such as the Chhetris are concerned about losing their positions of privilege but are not opposed to federalism, in principle. Pro-monarchy groups, on the other hand, do not care much about federalism at all but worry about the idea of a 'secular republic'.
The fragmented nature of these anti-federalism groups renders them incapable of putting up much of an organised resistance to the peace process. Also, the groups are not connected by a strong organisational structure and their leaders do not form strong personal networks, and therefore, it will be difficult for them to quickly mobilise a grassroots opposition. But hopefully, strong provisions for individual rights that have been incorporated in the draft of the new Constitution will go a long way to pacify the elite's fear of discrimination and popular uprising will be avoided. However, if the present political deadlock continues, there is a strong possibility that these groups might coalesce and form a broader conservative alliance.
As far as the three major political parties in Nepal are concerned, the common assessment has been that the Maoists have led the demand for federalism but in reality, their commitment is suspect. For one, their class-based value system is ideologically in contrast to a caste-based system of representation. Second, their version of the Constitution which envisions a federal state is heavily titled towards the centre, thus diminishing the scope for self-governance by dominant minorities and instead, paving the way for a unitary state, governed by a small elite. Nonetheless, they have used the agenda of a federal state to build support during the insurgency and now much of their credibility as a viable political party depends on their unequivocal commitment to federalism. It is of little surprise then that the Maoists have whole-heartedly pushed for the establishment of a federal state in Nepal.
As for the Nepali Congress and the CPN(UML), both support federal restructuring on paper and to some extent even in action, but within the parties there is significant resistance to the idea. The divide is well exemplified in the Nepali Congress's loathing of, an essentially symbolic provision of proportional ethnic representation, that new provinces be named after the dominant minority. In fact, several minority leaders for whom proportional ethnic representation is a non-negotiable principle, now believe that the parties committed to the idea for the sake of bargaining and this has resulted in the loss of popular support.
Members of ethnic and regional groups have already threatened to take to the streets and even resort to violent protests, if their demands for a federal state are not met. For now, they have pinned their hopes on May 28, 2011 — the extended deadline for the Constituent Assembly to produce a new Constitution, all though there is little hope that the deadline will be met.
Ultimately, the idea of a federal state has tremendous popular support in the country, particularly from the Madhesis in the Terai region and from groups in the eastern hills. And while it is true that the various ethnic and regional groups are not part of a larger umbrella organisation, they do maintain very strong inter-organisational ties that are further reinforced by strong personal networks.
If the promise of a federal state fails, it will be fairly easy for these fragmented groups to come together and launch a strong, possibly violent, protest movement. Already minority leaders have become restless with the deadlocked peace process and if the Constituent Assembly misses its deadline again, the situation may quickly escalate.
(Published in the Oped section of The Pioneer on January 27, 2011)
No comments:
Post a Comment