By Jeevan Baniya
As often expressed, the Constitutional Assembly (CA) of Nepal is supposed to preserve and institutionalise the achievements made through many human sacrifices and sufferings over many years; and it is widely shared view that it will be possible only after a successful writing of a new constitution. Different views on various issues coming out from various sections of the society. Views on the issue of ethnicity, marginalised groups and minority groups are one of them.
The debate whether it is better to have federalism in Nepal or not is now no more an issue, for, most of the political parties have already vowed to establish a federal republican order. But the question regarding what kind of federal structure is suitable or what sort of federal state can provide opportunities to all citizens of Nepal with which citizens can live with equal dignity and respect, remain largely unanswered. The fact that the country is full of diversities with over 90 castes and ethnic nationalities, more than 80 languages spoken, about 10 religious groups makes drafting an all-inclusive constitution all the more challenging.
Arguments have been articulated by some that ethnicity-based federal system is the best way to address the issues of the marginalised and minority groups. They argue, supporting the idea that the state in the past attempted to dominate ethnic nationalism hindering the growth of a modern state, and now is the time they are set to fight for their rights. There are also counter arguments that ethnic or linguistic based federal line will not be viable for the country and that it will lead to the disintegration of the country.
Recent arguments from some constitutional experts also share this view and have advised the political parties not to take the path of ethnic federalism. If this path is seen vulnerable to breeding and sowing the seeds of instability and fragmentation in Nepal, it is also equally urgent to have a serious discourse on whether territorial or any other political federal can remove the power from the center and limited groups and provide it to the grassroots where people can feel more comfortable and equal to entertain opportunities to better their socio-economic, cultural and political status; only such structure can ease the way to a relatively just society.
One the one hand the country has to address the issues of such long dominated and discriminated groups so as to build sustainable peace, equality and social justice, one the other, it has to ensure its stability and unity within diversities. Although there are always not successful stories of federal structures around the world, federalism can be at least viewed, in the case of Nepal, as a road to enhance ethnic harmony based on mutual respect and reciprocity. To make federalism bring about positive outcome, major ethnic groups in Nepal need to agree on co-existence and strive to promote pluralist policies respecting all ethnic groups in the country as defined by Daniel J. Elazar, a renown scholar on federalism, who views federation as ‘self-rule plus shared rule’.
Some political leaders in the recent days have been expressing their centralist views against federalising the country along ethnic line; it is however a pity that they have not proposed any alternative models to addressing ethnic and regional grievances of the people seriously. Rather they only tirelessly speak about ‘potential danger of disintegration’. Dividing the country into federal units may not necessarily lead us to prosperity as many conflicts in the world tell us how fatal it can be if not handled properly. But then, what specific mechanism can be set up to address the problems and the grievances of the groups? We don’t get the answer in the speeches of our leaders, which only lead people like me wonder whether they are afraid of potential erosion of their existing political power and privileges they have long been holding.
There are always dangers and fears while setting up an appropriate federal structure that can successfully accommodate many ethnic groups in the system. The CA has a chance before it to create conditions conductive for the transformation of such ethnic nationalism to state nationalism, which is a necessary condition to leap forward as a prosperous country. In case of failure to manage it properly through new constitution, there are dangers of serious discontents spilling over, which will ultimately weaken the stability and sovereignty of the country.
No matter what sort of federalism will be adopted it is thus necessary to guarantee that the upcoming constitution gives the opportunities to different ethnicity and cultural groups to preserve their identity, respect and promote their culture and history, and to use and develop their languages. The discourses should be directed to how to ensure the representation of different ethnic groups as the head of the state, the prime minister, vice chairperson and secretary of the council, in the local, regional, national governments, bureaucracy and civil services on the basis of freedom, equity, fair as well as proper representation.
In the similar vein, their rights to exercise the rights to self determination, and strong legal framework in case of denial or abrogation of their rights should be ensured in the upcoming constitution. Since one of the basic norms of democratic system is people being free to decide what is best for them, it is meaningless to advocate for a prosperous Nepal in the absence of the constitutional and political setup whereby different ethnic groups can have the opportunities to dream of and decide their future.
There are different ideological orientations and political necessity in different countries in the world that support the multicultural federalism as a framework to resolve the issue of ethnic diversity and right to self-determination. Normative views are found to have been articulated about the desirability of cultural group rights and the politics of recognition in multinational liberal democracies. The views refer to a particular idea of asymmetry that enshrines vision of multiculturalism. There are constitutional protections of certain cultural group rights at the heart of federation and meet the assumed need of the groups for recognition of their national status.
While deciding the federal structure, the experiences from difference countries that adopted certain federal system to address the issues of marginalised and minorities should also be taken into consideration. In the west, countries like Switzerland, Belgium and Canada have formally recognised ethno linguistic units and allocated political power on the basis of ethno linguistic formula. And, countries like India and Nigeria are examples that seem committed to cultural and structural pluralism. In Nigeria, the federal system consists of three regions, each with a dominant ethnic group. It was possible as the ethnic groups are in few numbers and concentrated in a particular region; while the Nepal’s case is completely different.
Lessons can be learnt from the Indian experiences on how important constitutional asymmetry has been in enabling India to ‘hold together’ and how the federalism is significant as it has succeeded to accommodate groups with different ideas. While looking at the positive sides of their system, a militant separatist movement in the Kashmir Valley of 1980s should also be taken into account while debating on federalism structure in the light of managing minority conflicts in India. According to Frank S. Cohen, more than 100 countries have shown that federalism minimizes violence, insurgency where as unitary structure are more apt to exacerbate ethnic. However, it is not sure whether Nepal will be successful to be listed on that list.
While writing a new constitution in Nepal, it is extremely urgent that all ethnic groups in Nepal need to forge new constitutional arrangements where they can live with mutual respect and shared interests. But no space should be given in upcoming constitution where any ethnic groups oppose to the federal structure realizing that they can not make their own destinies within that structure.
By this moment, compared to others, Terai is a great challenge in front of both the CA and the government even in the constitution writing process from various points of views such as: whether to establish it as a autonomous region (with right to secession?); how to set up the mechanism for revenue sharing among federal states as more than 85%? Revenues are collected from that region; what would be the national and federal security system while the region has open borders with India and thus have Nepal’s security interests; what would be the trading system with other states and so on. It is however not to undermine the demands from other groups from other parts of the country, but, considering the complexities of Terai region, it is of more weight while writing a new constitution.
Hence, the future of Nepal rests on how our political leaders, deferent ethnic groups, political parties and civil society of Nepal commit themselves to build ‘one common community’ based on the shared interests regardless of differences in ethnicity and cultures and work together for such destinies we share based on equal power sharing, equal rights, mutual respects and freedom as well as rights of independence.
(Baniya is a research fellow at Democracy and Social Movement Institute (DaSMI) Sungkonghoe University, Seoul, South Korea. He can be reached at: baniyajeevan@hotmail.com )
This article was originally published in online news portal of nepal: www.nepalnews.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment