African examples

Common problems in federalism associated with resource distribution and political power sharing between the state and federal governments. The US is widely cited as the best model of federalism. However, the 1979 Nigerian constitution, which drew upon the American model of federalism, was a failure. Disputes regarding geographical boundaries of states resulted in the Nigerian Civil War (July 6, 1967—January 15, 1970) instead. The tussle over the distribution of resources between states subsequently turned into a secessionist movement. In another example, Ethiopia opted to carve out federal states based on ethnic identity. This also perpetuated inter-ethnic conflict, to which Ethiopia is currently struggling to find a solution.

So in Nepal, before we divide the country into federal states, we must be clear about the basis of federalism. This will require educating the people about how a two-level government will work. Citizens must also know that each federal state will exercise a degree of autonomy.

As one of the contentious issues of the first Constituent Assembly (CA) was the structure of federalism in Nepal, a debate on the same is advised. Nigeria and Ethiopia can offer some lessons regarding the need to be cautious while demarcating federal boundaries. Natural resources often become a bone of contention among federal states. As in Nigeria, there is also a question about the nation’s capacity to manage multiple federal states.

Caste and ethnicity

Likewise, the culture and ethnicity of

various groups of people living in new states must also be taken into account. In the case of the two African nations, political elites failed to understand that ethnic identity is of great importance to minority groups. In the Nepali context, it is important to understand that ethnicity and caste are not the same, even though they have been used synonymously in Nepali politics. Ethnicity is natural while caste is not. Ethnicities usually sustain themselves in a particular

geography. Arguably, the South Asian caste system is worse than South African apartheid. Thus, the caste debate should have no room in the new CA. But the constitution must strengthen ethnicity identity, not simply by naming the states according to ethnic identity but by guaranteeing ethnic minority rights. Thus, political elites must focus on designing the constitution and combining effective governance with the recognition of diversity within the population, and the protection of economic and cultural rights of all segments of society.    

Transnational examples show that federalism needs empowered politics. It would not be remiss to say that Nepal is not ready to adopt federalism unless the political actors and civil society participate in a constructive debate and demonstrate their ability to digest, accept and handle the challenges that can arise while developing a federal system.

Federal bases

Three bases for federal states are currently being debated in Nepali politics: ethnicity, geography and a mix between the two. Theoretically, none of these are bad but it is essential that we determine which system will fit our nation the best. First, Nepal’s rich cultural diversity needs to be taken into consideration while designing the states. Second, geographical diversity has long been one of the greatest challenges to Nepal’s socioeconomic development. The geographical context leads to the availability of resources to states and resources run the states’ economies. Additionally, a number of conflicts in Nepal have been culturally constructed and are directly linked to the development agenda. Our centuries-long feudal system should have no place in the new constitution. The deep-rooted feudal culture was one of the major sources of the 10-year long insurgency. But the rooting out of feudalism, which still persists, may not be addressed by the geographical base and people from the remote hills and mountains may continue to be backward.

Similarly, the ethnicity base, which was roundly rejected by the second Constituent Assembly election, may not produce social harmony and social integration and may cause certain marginalised ethnic groups to continue to be isolated from the federal government. The political justifications for ethnic federalism need to be more varied. Such a system would need to include the support of minority rights. Autonomy is important, particularly for the Madhesi populations, who have long demanded this for their acquiescence to the coercive powers of the centuries-old centralised government.

Allowing for the protection of the rights of minorities, as well as the rights of others in the federation, and allowing for regional control of purely local and regional matters so as to discourage the alienation that people might feel from the central government would be the right way to proceed towards federalism. Our kind of federalism should allow individuals to join with those who share similar tastes for government service, thus, opening the door to a general level of welfare, and presumably, a degree of satisfaction with political and economic institutions.  

Paneru is a faculty member at Strayer University, Virginia, the US