The question about the concept and context of restructuring the Nepali State is often being raised. To some, how could a country whose four elements of state are well-defined and secure be restructured? To others, it is only the physical form with which some structures have to be adjusted to the changed context. My concept and spirit go much beyond such a narrow perspective as this agenda embraces both the new structures and the spirit of democracy.

Democracy, as borrowed from outside, has universal features. Many changes to make democracy inclusive, people-centric and just are based on Nepal’s ground realities with which the foreigners might not be familiar. Thus, the prescription offered by foreign friends might prove to be counter-productive and unreal as it happened while persuading the leaders to accept the King’s offer of Prime Ministership at the height of the April movement. Leaders had no other options than to reject the external pressure as such an agenda was devoid of the movement’s spirit. It was not only the best example of the people and their leaders’ confidence but also a message that the future of the country’s governance would not be taken for granted. Structures considered as anti-people and regressive should either be changed or overhauled on the basis of the Jana Andolan’s spirit. The 12-year democratic exercises led us to believe that democratic governance turns out to be futile if it fails to be inclusive and authoritative for injecting trust and confidence into the political processes. So state restructuring is both a structural design and empowerment of all sections — Dalits, ethnic groups, gender, powerless and the underprivileged sections of high castes and others. Democracy without the empowerment of ordinary people would be a farce in the post-2006 movement. The agenda of restructuring the state is embedded with social reforms, economic and political uplift of the people and above all the distribution of power and resources to outlying areas where local residents would have access. The structural plan aims at creating new geographical divisions within the country on practical grounds of ethnicity, region, population distribution, etc. Organisations and individuals have suggested various models for carving out autonomous regions or federal system. Some sceptics do not subscribe to ethnic divisions as suggested by the Maoist model but argue for better decentralisation or local governance within the existing unitary structure of the state.

Nevertheless, given the continued domination of a few privileged castes and classes ever since Nepal’s unification by force in 1769 and due to the lack of enthusiasm of the upper caste and class groups to change the state’s structures, the Nepali state has all along been status quo-bound and remained exploitative. As a result, the deprived sections and regions are perennially marginalised in the country’s mainstream politics. The changes of 1951 and 1990 were expected to be revolutionary in qualitative terms but didn’t succeed in stabilising democratic institutions, though the democratic exercises could not go in vain in spreading consciousness across the country. It is also true that the political forces could not tame the monarchs due to their lack of commitment to the basics of democracy. It made politics palace-centric. The King and the Royal Nepalese Army worked in tandem as if the army was created for the preservation of monarchy, contrary to the constitutional provisions.

If the actors become too docile and compromising on the spirit of democracy, the palace’s intervention is but natural. Thus, the erosion of constitutional process started immediately during and after the enforcement of the 1990 Constitution. Whether parties that still espouse the cause of ceremonial kingship would be able to articulate it (i.e. the King or Queen would only be a political showpiece or what G P Koirala says, god like Pashupatinath), no rationale has yet been advanced for the continuation of ceremonial monarchy. On the one hand, they have stripped the King of all powers including those of a titular head, while on the other they seem to be hesitant to accept an alternative model of republican system.

Restructuring is transformation of the existing feudal order. It relates to the physical redesigning, attitudinal change of elites and freedom from inherited mindsets, indoctrination in participatory political culture, economic and social emancipation, and access of all sections to resources and power. It will disperse power out of Kathmandu, create regional and local institutions for realising people’s aspirations and making Nepal a well-governed, just and democratic country. Making each part of the country capable of providing representative governance would mitigate regional disparity. For this, all parties and civil society members should free themselves from caste, class, regional, ethnic and other prejudices because the restructuring plan with set objectives would come in sharp focus during the Constituent Assembly debates.

Prof Baral is executive chairman, NCCS