Hard facts about federalism

By Avantika Regmi

It’s been just a few days that the self-appointed rulers of our Motherland have arbitrarily declared her a “Federal Republic.” Maybe this terminology sounds great and conveys feelings of a rosy and prosperous future for some selected groups, but for me, personally, these words are nothing more than the death knell of my unfortunate and poor, yet so beautiful, calm and serene, my most beloved Mother Nepal. In the paragraphs below I will try to bring out the reasons why I have this strong feeling, the premonition, and the fears of this inevitable eventuality of Nepal’s death knell.

First and foremost, what does a Federal Republic mean? A federal republic is a federation of states with a republican form of government. A federation in turn means the composition of a number of self-governing states united by a federal government.  Alternately, a federal republic can also be defined as one in which authority is divided and shared among different units of government. Thus, theoretically, federalism is the antithesis of centralization and unification of a country. To borrow an analogy from Physics, federalism is a centrifugal force where individual units want to fly away but are held together by a centripetal force. Federalism is designed to achieve some self-rule and shared rule amongst all the constituent member states.

 

Next, an indicator of the popularity and success of Federalism would be borne by the number of existing Federal Republics. How many nations are Federal Republics? Surprisingly, there are not more than twenty Federal Republics. The most prominent ones being Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Ethiopia, Germany, India, Iraq, Nigeria, Russia, Switzerland, and the United States. Nepal is the newest entrant to this list preceded by Iraq. Then there were the Federal Republics of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, not so long ago, which now no longer exist.

And, even more surprising, there are only five nations worldwide who unequivocally declare themselves as a Federal Republic, i.e. federalism is enshrined in their name itself: Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Federal Republic of Germany, Federal Republic of Nigeria, Federative Republic of Brazil and Federal Republic of Iraq. Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal would be only the sixth explicit Federal Republic worldwide. Why do countries fear to enter this club of explicit federal republics even after declaring them to be some sort of a federation?

 

The difference between an unequivocal Federal Republic (which Nepal has become) and only having some spirit of it, but not really becoming one, can be understood more clearly by looking at the example of India. Dr BR Ambedkar, the chairman of the constitution drafting committee in India, was dead against federalism and point blank refused to insert the word “federal” in the final constitution of India (that came out in 1950). Jawaharlal Nehru was also against this whole concept – the constitution committees chaired by Nehru recommended a centralized federal model.

It is important to understand the distinction between a federal republic and a centralized federal model because the centralized federal model is not representative of a true federal system, as maximum power is still concentrated at the center with only an appearance of federalism by constituting state governments. Moreover, the refusal of Dr Ambedkar to explicitly include India as a federal republic should make one to ponder a lot and be very wary of including this word in the name of a nation.  

 

The reluctance of Dr Ambedkar and Nehru makes a lot of sense when one considers the fact that India was not formed that easily. Sardar Patel, the then home minister and strong man of India, had to often threaten and cajole the wayward Princely states and arm-twist them to join the union of India. In the end India was an amalgamation of around five hundred princely states, some even larger in spatial extent and population than Nepal (example, princely state of Hyderabad) and, moreover, all “enjoying some form of local autonomy.”

 

If the founding fathers had included the word “federal” in the constitution it would have laid the foundation for a weak center that could eventually fail to hold a nation forged together with such a great difficulty. Let me now provide the reasoning why the few nations that chose to become an explicit federal republic did so.

 

Czechoslovakia came into being in 1919 and was formed by merging two politically distinct entities - the Czech and Slovak regions. There was no force involved in this union; it was based on the fundamental concern for their mutual security. They wanted to create a bigger nation to strengthen them militarily and economically. Moreover, the Slovak region was promised some semblance of self-rule. Thus, the term Federal Republic makes sense here.

Another example is Nigeria, the only “federal” state in the whole of Africa until Ethiopia declared itself a federal state in 1994. The bringing together of various ethnically and culturally distinct regions in 1914 amalgamated the Nigeria of today. Nigeria was bequeathed a federal constitutional rule by its British colonists in 1954 after a series of demands for regional autonomy and “rights to secession.” By the time Nigeria gained independence in 1960, its three regions had already become self-governing. Thus, when Nigeria declared itself a Federal Republic in 1963 it made sense because not only had the nation already adopted a federal form of government, a decade earlier, but also its three regions had almost become independent. Thus, Nigerian leaders may have hastened to enshrine Nigeria as an explicit Federal Republic, so as to prevent the breaking apart of the nation and to consolidate the Nigerian Republic.

 

Another example, the Swiss federal constitution (promulgated 160 years ago) came into existence at the end of a civil war between Catholic and liberal cantons. In another example, in Argentina the implementation of Federalism started after rural strongmen from three provinces waged a battle after their demand that the juntas in Buenos Aires establish a federation was not met. The rural strongmen won the battle (in 1820) after which the provinces signed a treaty, that enshrined that the provinces would not be controlled from Buenos Aires henceforth, but things did not turn out the way the rural strongmen wanted after all, i.e. the Argentina of today is not an explicit federal republic.

 

Now coming to the case of Mother Nepal: did Nepal go through any danger of disintegration or war between various parts of the nation such as those of Nigeria, Argentina, or Switzerland? Or on the contrary are we in the process of creating a bigger state like Czechoslovakia? Bear in mind that all these nations became federal republics to consolidate the integrity and cohesion of their respective nation states. When we already exist as a solid unitary state what is the sense of turning it into a federal republic thereby sowing the seeds of a future weak nation?

 

Federalism is a process to increase the strength of warring or friendly nation states by coming together, and a movement in the direction of a unitary state. To break a unitary state into a federation smacks of nothing else but a mischievous attempt to weaken Nepal. 

 

Keep in mind that nations like Nigeria and Ethiopia declared themselves Federal Republics to placate the secessionist groups that were ready to break the integrity of the nation. On the contrary there has not been a single ethnically motivated separatist or secessionist movement that has been waged on the soil of Nepal. Nepal has been a solid unitary state for more than 200 years and that’s not a small length of time. Thus, again how on earth can any sane mind think of declaring this solid nation a “Federal” Republic and weaken it from inside? Only enemies of the nation or gullible idiots can agree to this.

 

Moreover, the stupidity of the supporters of a federal republic can be understood from the fact that this must be the only nation in modern history to declare itself a Federal Republic when time tested republic states have not dared to. Please go and ask the Indians, who presumably have blessed this move, whether they would dare to convert India into an explicit federal republic.

Of course, the merchants of destruction vehemently cry aloud that Nepal had to be declared a federal republic to undo the centuries old atrocities of the Shah-Rana rulers and the subjugation of the various ethnic minorities and indigenous groups. Thus, the premise on which this new disintegration of Nepal is taking place is along ethnic lines (ethno-federalism) and to redress the past faults. This seems to be the only issue to break the nation and the only example of modern times in which a unified solid nation is being mutilated and disintegrated to redress past mistakes.

Let me also remind you that many nations that had inserted the word “Federal” at some point of time in their history have since erased it.

 

Moreover, there is another point I’d like to address here: Where does the grand scheme of a Federal Republic fit in the context of Nepal considering its spatial extent? There is a common thread shared by most of these nations that have taken the federal path explicitly or otherwise. Argentina, Brazil, Ethiopia, Germany, India, Nigeria, Russia, Switzerland, and United States (excluding Austria and Switzerland): these are all spatially humungous countries. Argentina is almost the size of India with the total area of 2,766,890 square km (8th largest nation). India has continental area of 3,287,590 square km (7th largest). Brazil (5th largest) is almost three times of the size of India. The United States is 9,826, 630 square km (3rd largest) and Russia 17,075,400 square km (the largest). Nigeria is 923, 768 square km and Germany is 357, 021 square km. On the contrary, Nepal is a tiny 147,181 square km, only larger than Austria and Switzerland. Thus, the perceived autonomous states or provinces of Nepal are going to be very-very small – reminiscent of the baieshe-chaubese rajyas of yonder years. How will these future federal states even survive? What will they do for survival? Beg India to help them against the neighbour? Even with the best of intentions India would ultimately be forced into the role of an imperial judge.

What is being sown in Nepal today as an ethno-federal state would ultimately lead to the erosion of the Nepali identity and from collective strength we would move to collective weakness; ethnic groups will fight for supremacy and our large neighbours would play one federal state against another. We will lose our independence. I beg and I pray to our short- sighted leaders and parties to forget their petty short term self-interests and goals; give up your short term calculated gains in the larger interest of the nation and roll back federalism; for this is that demon which will first break up our beloved Motherland Nepal and then devour it and make slaves of all her children to foreign powers.

------------------------------

Please post your views on this article posted on Kantipur online.

This is a very gloomy portrait of the Federalism adopted in Nepal in the semblance of the neo-fascist governement which is egressing towards the self destruction. As I read while researching for the carcinogen effect of nicotine, I came across a concept, Apoptosis. This is a process which involves of the individual cells programming themselves to self destroy in event of cell injury. The cell or surrounding tissues unequivocally decide of that effect. Is this step in Nepal's part an Apoptosis, where the autonomus states, at the event of insurgence and failure to sustain the peace, decide to defect and create a more macabre horror in already grim picture?

Whoever came up with such a notion that could hold our country under such a ghastly system, I still urge in the importance of history. It should be made mandatory for everybody, so that we can learn from the mistakes made in the past.

 

 

 

I have read some opinions from pro-federalism people and I have found most of them to be ambiguous in nature and to be honest, more than assessing different aspects of federalism, they seem to pedal a hope that this will be the thing that will fix everything.

Aren't we Nepalis done with the hope pedaled by the hopeless politicans? The moaists pedaled so much hope that we forgave them for killing 15,000 innocent Nepalis. We are a hopeful bunch. We want to believe them because things are not right. We really need to take a moment to realize how feasible their empty promises are.

This really a very good article and I urge you to read and share. Fedaralism sounds good and would have been good under different context as outlined in the article, but in the context of Nepal it's a very very bad idea.

Thanks for sharing. Changed my view point completely.

Have a look, different opinion.
https://www.facebook.com/736105056480700/videos/886709421420262/

____ I have few comments.

Knowingly or unknowingly lots of nepalese are in favour of Federalism. If we dont go to Federalism many pppl will blame 'khas' community for destroying the nation, which is not true.

Maoist sold dream 'Federalism is the ultimate cure', which is not true either, but still lots of nepalese beleive in that, Many Nepalese which previously were in favour of federalism learned lesson after nepal theortically enetered into Federalism back in 2063. But significant number of nepalese still beelive in that dream..

So, if we dont go to Federalism there will be a unnecessary friction in the society which could be derogatory to the country.

It is also true that many nepalese do not have access to the politics in Kathmandu, because of education, transport and communication and economical situation, Once they have provincial states. Problem of communication, financial ( they dont have to come to expensive kathmandu to have their say), transport will be solved to much extent. Then many problems ( multiculturism, inclusive government, lower cast inclusion,womens right etc) which central governt is facing now will be the problems of local government too. provincial government will be forced by proviancial poulation ( which usually difficult for them to do in central govenment because of afformentioned reasons). Once these things are in provincial government It will be easier to do in central government.

Secondly, the mentality " Federalism is the cure of every problems' will also erode from people ( those who still beleive in it ) once they realised there is no significant change in common mans life.Once this is realised he blame game will stop. Like after 10 yrs in federalism many ppl realised that.

Then ppl will realise that culture, language, religions are not as imortant as financial statues, then infight among different cultural, religious and linguistic groups will also die down ( but not 100 %).

And federalism does not necessaailry mean disintigration of Nepal.

Yes offcourse whatever I cure I said can be achieved without going to federalism if we have

1. Charismatic leader or
2. lots of money

we dont have both

we Nepalese are ppl who learn lesson only when we suffer, so let ppl experience proviancial system and learn lesson from it.

silver lining

I do not beleive Federalism is the cure of everything but hey, it is just my beleif, few things which I believed turned out to be wrong. So let this be wrong too.

Nepal may progress a lot in federalism because of competition among different provincial states

that is why I support federalism

_____ I have already outlined the practical reasons behind not supporting federalism. Your points are based on ideal scenario which is not the case in Nepal. If everything was ideal then we would not even need to be considering federalism at this point. Even the concept of democracy was ideal when we 'got' democracy, but sadly due to less than ideal scenario of Nepali politics, democracy has not be able to yield much positive impact in the country. Now, politicians are trying to say 'federalism' will solve the problems just like they did decade ago. After a decade of 'democracy' the general population of Nepal have realized that mostly politicians have been impacted positively, and the rest of the people are poorer and less well off than before. Now, these same politicians are saying 'federalism' will solve the problems, and people really believe that it will solve anything, instead of creating more problems? The following post by Shiva Prakash is noteworthy in questioning Federalism.