Tula Narayan Shah, the Executive Director of the Nepal Madhesh Foundation (NEMAF), has seen the evolution of federalism and its ups and downs. While there are voices now and then that Nepal’s federalism has become a lost cause and provinces, in particular, have become totally irrelevant, Shah argues to the contrary and says provinces have not been functioning properly because they have been made weak and toothless. Major arguments of Tula Narayan Shah are presented below in four points:
Misunderstanding federalism
The fundamental mistake many people are making about federalism in Nepal is that they misperceive and misunderstand it as a development project, like a fifth-development plan, or a tool of poverty alleviation and infrastructure development. This misunderstanding is at the heart of the anti-federalism sentiments brewing up in several parts of the country. People have begun to say ‘it is seven years since federalism but there still is no road in front of my house or we are still poor.’ While federalism is somehow related with development and prosperity aspirations of the people, it is more related with the exercise of powers by the people at the grassroots, where they feel equally treated by the state, where their aspirations for cultural and religious identities are well recognized and respected. Because at people’s level, people have misunderstandings about federalism, people are saying federalism is becoming a costly business and it has only created multiple power centers and multiple kings instead of one that we used to have when there was a monarchy. As the provinces have been made deliberately weak, and their hands tied because of the reluctance on the part of the federal government to make laws to devolve powers to the provinces in the spirit of the constitution, anti-federalism debates and concerns sound valid and logical.
Remember history
To understand the federal system, we need to go to its roots. We need to look into the federal debate from the historical perspective. Demand for federalism rose from Madhesh in 1952, the key demand was Terai should be declared a single province with Hindi as a working language. This is the reason why those from Tarai Madhesh think more passionately about federalism than those from other places. Federalism is essentially related with aspirations of Madhesh and Madheshi people.
When Madheshis, Janajatis and the marginalized people demanded federalism they never saw it as a development project or poverty alleviation project. For them federalism is a means to end historical marginalization, oppression and deprivation by the state. For them federalism is about addressing diversity of culture, language, religion and regional disparity in a way every citizen feels justice has been done to him/her, no matter whether s/he is a Madheshi, Tharu, Muslim, Janajati, woman or Brahmin or Chhetri. It is about each cultural and ethnic community being able to institute a system whereby they govern themselves. It is about sharing power. One had to come to Kathmandu for every bit of work. Things were totally centralized, religions, culture and language of those who belonged to different communities were undermined.
So in a way, federalism for them was about having a share of power in proportion to the number and needs of people belonging to different communities. If you miss this context in Nepal’s federalism debate, you will be missing a big picture.
Flawed structure
So what went wrong? The problem started when the dominant groups delineated the provinces rather unfairly. If the province delineation could have been accomplished during the first Constituent Assembly, the situation could have been better because the first CA had more representation from the historically marginalized Madheshis, Janajatis and women. Their voices would matter in the first CA. But when federal boundaries were being negotiated in the second CA, those who were opposed to, or reluctant to embrace federalism were in dominance. Federal structure was created in such a way that in every province—except in Madhesh—traditionally dominant ethnic communities—Brahmins and Chhetris—could maintain demographic domination.
So Nepal’s federal structure was flawed and it is flawed but even this flawed federal structure has done some of the good things which were not there before federalism. Look at Madhesh. Federalism addressed the conflict of Madhesh. At least, Madheshis have chief ministers and ministers of their province from their own community. Madheshi people see their faces and representation in the cabinet and provincial assembly. Of course, the cabinet and provincial legislature have not been fully representational and inclusive to accommodate the marginalized and deprived among the Madheshis but despite this Madheshis feel that they belong to the Nepali state. It also helped to mainstream the marginalized in the state power to some extent. Madheshis got mainstreamed and they felt empowered culturally and identity-wise. The holidays the Madhesh government declares on the occasion of Jitiya and Chhath are the manifestation of cultural identity of Madheshi people.
But the irony of the matter is that ever since federalism went into execution, the central government has not been willing to, rather resistant to, devolving power to the provinces. This is the reason provinces are not being able to operate as per the expectations of people. I hear many people say that provinces have become white elephants but I would say it is too early to draw any such conclusions now. It is only seven years since the provinces began to function despite very limited powers devolved to them and despite limited resources and without autonomy envisaged by the constitution. There has not been fair power-sharing as yet.
Federal future
Now the question is not that of whether we need provinces or not. The question is about making provinces deliver as per the aspirations of the people and the constitutional mandate. Some people argue that keeping provinces as they are today will lead to future conflict. I do not see it that way. If there is any conflict in federal dispensation it is between the federal government and the provinces. Provinces are demanding powers, rights and autonomy which the center is not willing to grant. So it is states vs the center situation in Nepal, not people vs the provinces or people vs federalism. If provinces are not functioning well, let’s make them functional. If there are laws needed to empower provinces, let’s bring out those laws. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
People in the past were divided on federalism. Due to political polarization, some people supported federalism and others opposed it. So there was conflict between communities in the hills and Madhesh. Now the people want delivery from the federal structure. And this will do us well in the long run because it will create pressure to make provinces more functioning and able to deliver.
Many laws are yet to be formulated to facilitate the function and delivery of provinces. Some say that there are legal and constitutional hurdles to functioning federalism in Nepal. I do not see it that way. There actually are political hurdles. Major political parties still tend to operate by the mindset of centralist rule.
Comment