Opinion

State restructuring : A rainbow of models

State restructuring : A rainbow of models

By Murari Sharma

The SPA-Maoist agreement has taken Nepal one step closer to the constituent assembly (CA) elections next June. The state restructuring idea has also gained momentum. Started several years ago by some intellectuals to make society more inclusive and just, the idea caught the Maoists’ attention who converted it into a political slogan and declared that the country be divided into ethnic provinces.

Many societies have used federalism with democratic governance as a means to removing exclusion, bringing government close to people and giving them a voice. Such federalism has allowed multi-racial and multi-cultural societies to govern themselves while under a national tent.

Nepal was a unitary state for 238 years, ever since King Prithvi Narayan forcefully integrated small principalities into a nation. Shah kings — and Ranas for 104 years — centralised all levers of power and ruled the country as their fiefdom. But the 2006 April Revolution has changed that by cornering the king and paving the way for truly empowering people and reorganising the state.

Federalism has become a new credo, and even mainstream politicians, who derided the idea, have begun to rethink it. Debate on federalism is becoming more intense as the CA elections approach, and with them the time to write a new constitution. Even though Nepal will have to evolve its model through a broad-based process, there is a rainbow of examples.

There are Soviet and Chinese styles of federalism in which provinces are formed along ethnic or administrative lines and enjoy virtually no power for self-government. The Swiss Confederation’s 22 cantons, which joined the federation of their free will, exercise full authority over all issues but defence and foreign policy. In the middle are the Indian and US brands. India’s states represent administrative and linguistic units and enjoy limited jurisdiction on public policy. In the US, most states joined the federation on their own and exercise considerable powers to govern themselves.

Whatever model we follow, it should pass three tests: Broad participation, economic viability, and wide powers for self-government. Provinces should have all segments of society that feel included in governance. The provinces should be kept to a small number to raise resources needed to run administration and to invest in development to broaden the economic pie and make inclusion beneficial to the public. Provinces should also enjoy broad powers to govern themselves, and not be a mere rehash of Panchayat era’s failed decentralisation efforts.

Formation of ethnic provinces, as the Maoists suggest, will be extremely problematic. The 2002 census states that racial and ethnic groups are so widely distributed across the country that, only in 14 districts, a group has more than 50 per cent population. Only in 6 districts out of those 14, a minority group outnumbers the others. Language makes the matter more complicated: Out of 43 districts where a minority group enjoys simple majority (the largest number but less than 50 per cent), Nepali speakers outnumber others in 29 districts.

Redistricting could partly ameliorate this difficulty. However, no magic will be able to bring the Tharu majorities living hundreds of miles apart in Bardia and Sunsari, or Chhetri majorities of Dolakha and Darchula, into some kind of geographical contiguity. Nepal will not lend itself to divisions based on ethnicity unless people are forced to seek relocation, which is likely to be messy and even bloody that will be near impossible under a democratic dispensation.

Furthermore, ethnic division will create 8 to 10 economically unviable provinces, mostly in the hills and mountains, where the resource base is poor. Access to resources is at the heart of inclusion, but most hill and mountain provinces will have to depend on the dole-out from the federal government in Kathmandu. This may lead to further marginalisation of underprivileged groups and defeat the restructuring purpose. Given its poverty and topography, Nepal might not ideally be able to sustain more than 3 to 5 provinces.

Extremely small provinces will not have the capacity to exercise broad powers for self-government and to safeguard their interests from an aggressive central government. Due to duplication of functions, lack of economies of scale, higher administrative cost and lower resources for investment, small provinces will not be able to improve living standards. Too much dependence on central government will also erode the power of provinces.

There is no easy way to convert a unitary Nepal into a federated state. However, prima facie, converting the existing development regions into 3 to 5 provinces could offer a “quick and crude” shortcut. This will allow the provinces to be inclusive, to retain economic viability and mountains-hills-Terai complementarity, and to handle broad powers necessary for self-government. My mind open to any better option.

Sharma is ex-Nepali ambassador to UN