The issue of federalism, including the number of states and their geographical demarcation, has been a major contentious issue in the creation of a new Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal. What exasperates the people is that none of the political parties seems to have a convincing answer and nor are they trying to work it out mutually. Consequently, time will only tell how many states new Nepal will consist of. 

 

Whatever the basis for the formation of states, ultimately, the future of the economy will drive the future of the states. The youth of Nepal, many of whom are currently forced to opt for foreign jobs in indecent working conditions, will first seek the answer to this important question—will the new states be able to provide decent jobs so that they can live decent lives? The answer must be in the affirmative, with no ifs or buts, if the country wants to get them back to contribute to its socio-economic development. 

Every year, about 400,000 youth enter into the Nepali labour market. At a conservative estimate, three million of the Nepali workforce is away from home, mostly out of compulsion. This simply confirms the fact that if a person is unable to get a job in their state or country, they will certainly decide to leave, at any moment and at any cost.

Is Nepal well prepared to become a Federal Democratic Republic in a real sense? While politicians can continue their deliberation, certainly not forever, on the formation of federated states, a team of experts should be simultaneously working on the economic viability of the potential states. Unfortunately, the latter part of the action is not happening, which reflects the lack of foresight and vision. The process needs to be pragmatic. The economic potential of a future state must be assessed if it is to survive and prosper in the long run. The political parties must be able to present a convincing answer to the people and communities, based on evidence and facts and figures. The people are now highly aware of their rights. They know what they want. Gone are the days when political leaders could dupe the people by claiming that they will transform Nepal into Singapore or Switzerland in 10 years’ time.

 

The creation of jobs is a core function of investment. Constructive national policies, strong institutions, market demand, steadfast infrastructure and steady politics encourage investors to enter into a particular country or state. By nature, public investment has limited capacity in terms of job creation, though it could well enhance the employability of a person making them more competitive in a labour market. But there is no alternative to private investment, domestic or foreign. Globally speaking, the private sector brings investment and sea changes in the economy. 

Recently, in a cut-throat competition to attract a globally known aircraft company, Boeing, which was looking for a new site to house its manufacturing unit, 22 American states tried their luck with proposals of decent incentives, infrastructure and facilities. It was a competition to secure and sustain thousands of jobs for many years to come—a political commitment and dedication that was expected of a state government by the American people. The competition was won by Washington state. The role of the trade union was very critical to bringing the investment into the state. In an agreement with the company, the workers agreed that they won’t have an opportunity to strike until 2024, when the contract expires. In return, the state provided a safeguard that the company would keep the jobs in Washington state. 

Can the Nepali people expect something similar? If yes, it is high time for those who are aspiring to become successful leaders, no matter which party they belong to, to think about this. Have they ever thought of an economic development plan for a state? What are the potential sectors of the economy for their state to bring investments home and create decent jobs for the people, along with a prosperous and a vibrant economy? What are the competitive advantages the states can offer to attract potential investors? What is the level of infrastructure? How easy or difficult will it be to do business in the state? These questions, among others, are vital. Perhaps many people think that it is premature to talk about economic development plans when nobody knows the number, shape or size of the potential federated states. But it should be other way round.

 

Nepal is in a critical state as far as its adoption of a new political system is concerned. People are sick and tired of the parties and their leaders because they have been delaying things at the cost of ordinary Nepalis. This will probably be the last chance for our leaders to make things work. People will no longer accept the excuses that leaders used in the past, like Nepal’s demanding geo-political situation or its topography. Leaders must also forget about accusing neighbours for not being supportive. The fact is that 

you can choose friends but you cannot choose neighbours. As leaders, Nepalis expect them to transform all these negatives into advantages.    

 

Rajbanshi is associated with the ILO. Views expressed in this article are personal