 |
| |
VOL. 28, NO. 18, Jan 09, 2009 (Paush 25 2065 B.S.)
|
|
Transitioning to Federalism: Faster can be Fatal
Shirish Ranabhat
Multiethnic countries, whether they are empires of diverse nationalities like the former Soviet Union, former colonies like Nigeria and Indonesia, or assemblies of native and immigrant peoples like Canada and Brazil, share a history of escalating ethnic and political tension. Recent history has experienced several such countries implode, including Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. Others, like Czechoslovakia's component parts, have parted away. Still others—Russia, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Sudan—struggle along with occasional, often violent spells of separatism.
There are examples around the world that ethnically diverse federalist countries such as Belgium, Canada, India, Spain, and Switzerland have sustained stable democracies. However, tensions among different ethnic groups at one time or another have erupted into violence at various times in India, Spain, and Switzerland. Nepal must learn from these world examples of shortcomings and difficulties in the federal systems and design a system within the correct political framework to make people behave more moderately. While designing such a system, Nepali political leaders must focus on issues that are not ethnic in nature to defuse tensions among different ethnic groups. Whether Nepal is able to establish a stable democracy ultimately depends on the design of its system of federalism.
Establishing a federal structure that can accommodate Nepal’s different ethnic groups is vital to securing peace and to strengthen democracy. In the absence of a uniquely designed governing system, violent conflicts and demands for independence are likely to engulf the country. If not planned precisely to meet the specific ethnic divisions at play, any democratic government to emerge in Nepal is bound to prove less capable of maintaining order.
Democracy aims to provide representation and protection for the rights of everyone in society. Creating and sustaining such a system in Nepal, which has recently been experiencing escalation in ethnic conflicts, is no easy task.
This contributor, from time to time, has raised the concerns over the sustainability of federalism in Nepal. Nepal’s geopolitical situation, cultural diversity, unethical and unappreciative nature of the leadership and their unwillingness to build Nepal, escalating ethnic conflicts and rising demands for independence etc. may be taken as precursors to the failure of federalism in Nepal. However, political situation shows federalism in Nepal is inevitable. Therefore, Nepal must develop a most effective kind of federalism to ensure a stable, self-sustainable democracy in the country. First and foremost, federal system must be designed such that the regional governments have considerable political and financial powers, which is an essential component for ensuring governmental protection for various ethnic groups and for preventing ethnic conflict and secessionism. If regional governments are granted certain powers in principal but denied these powers in practice or given only modest powers in the first place, federalism is guaranteed to fail. It is worth noting that the federalism has failed in countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, and Nigeria precisely because it did not go far enough in granting regional autonomy.
At a minimum, regional governments should control social, economic, and political issues such as health, education, unemployment, and intraregional trade. The federal government should retain control, however, over issues affecting the entire country such as defense, foreign affairs, currency, citizenship, and infrastructure. Individual ethnic groups should be integrated within a national military force with fair representation of all groups. Allowing each region to have its own military force would make secession and ethnic conflict all the more likely.
Under the new federal system, regional governments should also have considerable financial powers that allow them to legislate on economic policies that address needs specific to their region and to raise their own revenue. Without independent sources of revenue, the regional governments will remain dependent on the central government for funding. This will not only undermine their political autonomy but also prevent them from implementing the policies they create.
Although additional precautions will have to be taken to prevent regionally-based parties from dominating the government, the borders of the regional governments should not be drawn along ethnic and/or religious lines as it will increase the likelihood of ethnic conflict and secessionism by strengthening ethnic and religious identities in the country.
The potential consequences of failing to design federalism properly and to establish a stable democracy in Nepal extend far beyond Nepali borders. Destabilization in Nepal may draw interference of neighboring countries such as India and China. The failure to design and implement the kind of federalism that can establish a stable democracy in Nepal might undermine international support and discourage foreign investment in the country. Not just any kind of federal structure can prevent ethnic conflict and secessionism as well as establishing a stable democracy in Nepal. To ensure stability and sustainable democracy, political power must be divided between two or more levels of government, giving regional governments a greater control over their own political, social, and economic affairs with borders drawn to prevent regionally-based parties from dominating the government. Multiethnic country like Nepal can make the transition to federal regimes provided the proper groundwork is laid. Nepal must not rush. Faster transitions can be fatal.
shirish.pokhareli@gmail.com
