With Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala’s Nepali Congress deciding on Monday to subscribe to a federal structure for Nepal, all the eight parties now stand united on this issue. The Congress CWC also decided to raise the number of seats in the parliament for the districts which have seen a rise in population, accompanied with an increase in the number of the MPs those districts are to send under proportional representation. All the other parties favour a fully proportional representation system. By these decisions, the Congress dittoed the pledges Koirala, also its president, had made last week in his address to the nation aimed at defusing the agitation in several districts of the Terai. These are to be matched with further measures to “fully address” the demands raised in the violent protests there.

Whatever ‘concessions’ have been made come contrary to what the Congress stood for in the process of give and take during the making of the interim statute. What the eight parties agree on is likely to go through. But despite much talk of federalism and proportionality, little light has been shed on their nature and contents. Therefore, the road to the finalisation of how these two concepts should be put into practice is likely to be bumpy too. Federalism comes in different shapes and sizes, ranging from the overcentralisation of unitary systems to the extreme decentralisation of confederations. Experiences of countries embracing federalism suggest that different political contexts have thrown up different outcomes. The concept is vague and even if its evolutionary state is recognised there may not be a huge difference between it and a unitary system in substance. The main question is one of devolution of power and resources to the regional and local levels rather than of a federal or a unitary system. There is no guarantee that regional interests and governments will be better protected and promoted under a federal set-up than under a unitary one.

Proportional representation is much more complex than the first-past-the-post system and it has a number of variations which are enough to confuse even an educated person. Judging by the statements or intent of people or groups who favour it in Nepal, the understanding of one seems to be qute different from that of another on how it should work. As for the majority of the Nepalis who are simply illiterate, they are unlikely to understand its implications. In any case, proportional representation is considered elusive and its results are often disputed, as well as its desirability. Many of its disadvantages are often cited in discourse, including that it promotes instability and irresponsibility. Further, while Nepal’s South Asian neighbours have not adopted this system, no Nepali political party or group has made clear why much is being made of proportionality and what distinct advantages the country and the people will have by switching over to it. What we should do is sober thinking and embrace the new systems only after we have weighed the pros and cons of both so that they may not prove serious liabilities in the future.