Federalism, the way forward in Nepal?

The year 2072 of the Nepali calendar has brought a long waited consensus among the political leaders: first draft of a constitution holding the major issues like federalism and electoral process. It is disappointing to get a mere half unwrapped present. The ongoing discussion on the debated issues seems to lead nowhere until now. The parties in the government are only united so as not to form ethnicity based federal units – rest of the issues are still contentious. The frequent protests, widening gaps between the parties and contradicting demand for states have made the situation very pessimistic. What could be the way forward?

Federalism is the jewel of democracy, a jewel that cultivates the beauty of the nation itself. The decentralization of power that it brings and the identification of ‘unit’ it does are what makes federalism so pervasive in the democratic boundaries. The ongoing discussion is in the best interest of the nation. The more Nepal discusses different prospective models, the closer it gets in getting the apt system for the country. The debate on federalism has divided that the country for centuries.

India perfectly exemplifies above statement. The central government of India, even after 70 years of federalism, still faces the demand of forming new states. Therefore, the states should be visualized perfectly for failure is not an option in this case. The kingdom of Sikkim got annexed into India and the Crimea, formerly of Ukraine, to Russia. The sociopolitical scenario of Crimea and Sikkim might have been different. However, the fact of the respective ruling entities’ negligence in understanding the motivation of people and transnational developments have cost them. Nepal, sharing a common border with two economic giants India and China, both belonging to separate political ideologies, have immense challenge to construct the federal units. So as to not only preserve the identity of its ‘units’ (social, religious, cultural or ethnic) but also to ensure their participation in the mainstream discourse. Failing to do so could produce more C.K. Raut (who demands to separate Terai from Nepal) like individuals, a threat for nation’s sovereignty.  Discussion on these issues, therefore, should be as intensive as it can be.

The issues of federalism are to be dealt with facts and figures, strength and weakness and scientific distribution of resources. Politicians eye on their ‘political career’ or historical context rather than on facts. The recent discussion is merely based on emotions, rather than analysis on various sectors such as health, education and population by professionals who have crystal clear idea of the country. If the above idea isn’t digestible for the leaders of Nepal, then a committee of leaders and these professionals could be formed. In light, every decision that politicians make could be a guided one.