Federalism
and Conflict: Lessons and Cautions for Nepal
Dr Bishnu Raj
Upreti[1]
1. The context
Federalism was
neither envisioned in the 12th point agreement nor in the Comprehensive
Peace Agreement (CPA) nor in the 2007 Interim Constitution (IC). In 2008, the IC
was amended to incorporate federalism. Later, 25 of the 26 political
parties presented in the first Constituent Assembly (CA), except Rastriya
Janamorcha had accepted the federal political system. In the first CA debate on
the federalism was largely based on the vested interests, emotion and
sentiments, without engaging in the principles and substance of the federalism.
Critiques raised pertinent questions on relevance of federal system in Nepal but
the supporters failed to offer satisfactory answers. Instead, they blamed the
critiques as ‘reactionaries’ or ‘regressive forces’. When the Maoist vehemently
advocate for ethnic federalism, the nation was sharply divided. Some of the concerns
raised by the critiques of federalism demands serious thinking as: federalism weakens
sovereignty and increases the risk of disintegration of the nation; promotes
communal tension & ethnic conflict; erodes national feeling and weakens
national identity, it is not the agenda of Nepali people but imposed from the
external forces; it leads to the breakdown of national political parties into
regional ones; it discriminates people within the nation because of the
different rules in different provinces; it is operationally expensive, and it brings
unanticipated consequences. Further, the federalism was justified against the
poor performance of the past centralised political system of Nepal and equated with
unliterary state. It is conceptually and operationally fundamentally different.
Federal states are also highly centralised and unitary states are also highly
devolved. However, Nepalese politicians interchangeably used these two concepts
(unitary and centralised) and therefore created confusion.
Further,
ethnic federalism are advocated by some political parties and ethnic groups and
emotionally exploited the sentiment of ordinary people from the various ethnic
communities. Few elites & intellectuals, some radicalised youths & frustrated
or disgruntled political leaders separated from national parties and some misinformed
or misguided people view ethnic federalism is the ‘sole solution’ of ‘every
problems; of Nepal and they threaten to revolt if it is not materialised. However,
it has been globally proven that ethnic federalism cannot address the
complexity of multi–ethnic, multi-lingual multicultural societies. Providing privileged
to particular ethnic groups (e.g., naming provinces) alienates others and
becomes perennial source of conflict. The right to self-determination is not
only source of conflict but also fatal to the integration of the nation. ‘Ethnic
federalism in Nepal simply does not work because of the demographic, linguistic
and ethnic characteristics of Nepal.
Addressing poverty,
structural inequalities, political, social and economic exclusion, gender-based
discrimination, skewed resource distribution and combating corruption require
concerted action from all Nepali but when people are divided into ethnic groups
and portraying some sections of society as perpetrators and adapting revenge
and retaliation strategy, it will implant more conflict. Hence, Nepal at
present is at the verge of communal, ethnic and geographical conflict. Further,
the sharp divide between different religious groups from the manipulation of religious
sentiments and faith of people by some political parties has leading towards
religious intolerance and need immediate action to stop this situation.
|
Several
war-torn countries in the past have adopted or readopted federalism. Mexico
(1971), Argentina and Venezuela (more than once), Nigeria (1966-70), Ethiopia
(1991), Spain, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sudan, Iraq, and the Democratic Republic
of Congo are some examples. But they have faced serious ethnic tension and
conflict.
Potential sources of conflict within
federalism
Federalism is
not a magic wand to solve all contradictions of Nepal. Wrong handling of
federalism can cause civil war and disintegration of country (e.g., Yugoslavia
and the USSR in 1991, the splitting of Czechoslovakia in 1992, Serbia and
Montenegro in 2006, and the civil war in Nigeria in 1967). The following are
some potential sources of conflict:
1.
Sharing power and fiscal resources: Inappropriate sharing
of power and fiscal resources is a main area of potential conflict. Federal
countries like Australia, Spain, Malaysia and Germany are relatively
centralised in their distribution of fiscal powers (i.e., central government to
collect tax and other revenues), compared to Switzerland (right to collect tax amongst
the 3 levels), Brazil and Canada (right to raise revenue by provinces). If
expenditures needed for the provinces are mismatched, it leads to federal dysfunction.
Hence, clearly defining fiscal relations and revenue sharing is crucial to
sustain federal system.
2.
Protection of minorities, marginalised and excluded groups: If federal system fails
to protect minorities, marginalised and excluded groups, possibility of
conflict and tension is high. But the elite capture by the well off ethic
leaders (educated, economically strong and close to national and international
power centres) emerging as new phenomena and excluding the marginalised ethnic
people. Hence, the federal system of Nepal must protect the marginalised people
from elite (both ethnic and non-ethnic elites) to avoid conflict.
3.
Jurisdictional clarity: Experiences of different federal
countries have demonstrated that jurisdictional conflicts are common when there
is no clear definition of jurisdiction on distribution of power and authority
between the centre and provinces. The new constitution must clearly delineate
the jurisdictions of the central, provincial and local units to avoid these problems.
Dispute resolution mechanism must also be constitutionally defined to deal with
any ambiguities.
4.
Social divergence: Language, race, religion, social structures
and cultural traditions in a federal system must be mutually and simultaneously
reinforcing. If some actors negatively play with cleavages, social divisions
and conflicts are inevitable. In a multicultural, multi-linguistic plural
country like Nepal, it is important to treat all of them equally. Language-related
resentment in Pakistan, Malaysia, India and Nigeria and social cleavage-based
political polarisation in Sudan, Sri Lanka and Spain leading to separatist
movements can be lessons for Nepal.
Conflict resolution mechanism
The proper
functioning of a federal system and addressing potential conflict between the
centre and states requires dynamic conflict resolution mechanisms. Inter-State
council (or council of provinces) is essential for dealing with political ambiguities
and conflict between two provinces or centre and provinces.. The Inter-State
Council of India, Conference of Cantonal Governments in Switzerland and the
Council of Australian Governments (COAG) are some examples. Further, Malaysia’s
National Finance Council, Australia’s Commonwealth Grant Commission and South
Africa’s Financial and Fiscal Commission are important mechanisms in dealing
with financial issues and conflict. Similarly, an independent Natural Resources
Commission is pivotal for dealing with the conflicts related to sharing natural
resources (land, water, mines and minerals, hydro-power, and other resources) among
the provinces. Provision for a referendum on highly contentious issues and
issues of national importance can be included in the constitution to minimise
conflict and strengthen democracy. Although a referendum is an effective means
of conflict resolution, it can create conflict by dividing population into
majority and minority if not handled properly.
Dealing with extremes
Some federal
countries like former USSR, Yugoslavia (1991 & 1995), Pakistan (1971) and
Spain have faced problems of separation. The separation of Czechoslovakia in
1993 (into the Czech Republic and Slovak Republic) was largely based on the interests
of regional parties. The separation of Serbia and Montenegro in 2006 was mainly
from external influence (membership to the European Union). Various cases of
federal countries demonstrate that dealing with extremes requires a combination
of political, diplomatic and security approaches. The risk of secession is
often associated with federalism. Ethnic radicalisation and extremism in
multiethnic societies contribute to ethnic conflict and separation. Further, at
present various interest groups are trying to destabilise Nepal and therefore needs
to consider this issue seriously.
No comments:
Post a Comment