|
Articles
Federalism is not synonymous with Democracy: A misconception is being created here - Suresh Acharya
2010-05-04-------
The word federalism comes from the Latin word feodus and denotes negotiation or \'united According to the famous writer on federalism K.C. Whare (1963), the power is divided between the center and the federal states in such a way that both governments can function cordially and independently. Whare has famously described federalism as Unity in Diversity which is also been adopted as a core principle by USA. America is the pioneer of federalism. It was in 1780 after the American Revolution that democratic federalism began with the initiative of Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Wilson.
Johannes Althusius(1557-1638) concept of federalism was defined by Montesquieu and separation of power as a means to institutionalize politics. This is how it created the ideological basis for federal system of governance. The debate on federalism started in earnest in Nepal only after the People\'s Movement of 1990. At that time, out of the 44 political parties who had registered at the Election Commission, Nepal Rashtriya Janata Party, Nepal Sadhbhawana Party and Nepal Rashtriya Janamukti Morcha had demanded federal governing system in Nepal. However, with the establishment of democracy in 1951 Nepal Tarai Congress and the agitators of Limbuwan region demanded provincial autonomy based on ethnicity. It was then that political debate on federalism began in Nepal, but the debate received national importance only after the start of Maoist\'s armed conflict in 1996. Although there is surface level debate over federal system of governance, deep and serious discussion of the issue is yet to happen. However, the political parties are simply creating confusion amongst the public regarding federalism without doing their homework.
According to my knowledge, there are 194 countries with a unitary governing system and 25 (Nepal being the 26th) with federal governing system. 40% of the world population lives in countries where there is a federal system. This clearly indicates that federalism is more prevalent in countries that are geographically large and have a large population. United States of America, India, Brazil and Canada are a few examples.
Federalism is not the answer to all problems. This can be proven by looking at Nigeria and Pakistan. Federalism has no relation with democracy. It cannot be said that there is democracy in federal system of governance and no democracy in unitary system of governance. Attempts have been made to create such confusions in Nepal. 11 out of the 15 most democratic countries have a unitary system of governance, whereas federalism is considered synonymous to democracy. When it comes to decision making process, power and authority at the grass root level there is no major difference between unitary and federal system of governance. The main characteristic of federalism is the decentralization of power. It is useless if federalism is only stated in the constitution and not implemented with decentralization.
The matter of changing system of governance is not as simple as changing rooms. Therefore the changing of governing system in the world is a very rare occurrence. Although it is easy to change from a unitary system to a federal system, it is next to impossible to revert to a unitary system after having changed to a federal one. If we see examples from the last few decades, countries like Croatia, Slovenia and Serbia broke away from federal Yugoslavia and adopted unitary system. Similarly, same fate was of that of former Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia. These examples show that countries which revert to unitary system from a federal one often lead to a situation where their unified sovereignty itself is jeopardized. Therefore the implementation of federalism should be successfully and carefully implemented. The political leadership should have the courage and capacity for this.
There are countries like Belgium, South Africa and Iraq which have changed to federalism from a unitary system. These transitions did not result in a disintegration of the state. However, if federalism does not solve the inherent socio-economic and political problems then disintegration is inevitable. Everybody has to understand that that instance will be the point of no return.
It is natural to debate on federalism since we are talking of changing a system of governance which had been prevalent for the past 240 years. But the crux of the matter is to reach a logical conclusion with the debates which has not happened yet. Even the Interim Legislature Parliament with Maoist, had not been able to establish the fundamental basis for the issue. On the other hand, the incumbent governments have not made it clear to the public the pros and cons of a federal system. Thirdly, the mandate of the people has not been taken to decide on such an important issue. Fourthly, it is possible that doubts amongst Nepali intellectuals might have been aroused because of international donor agencies and NGOs who have supported federalism only because it is successfully prevalent in their home countries. This has caused disputes in the society. For this the media has to create a positive environment. Other reason for disputes is the inability of the pro-federalism political parties to present justifiable reasons for labelling the prevalent unitary system which has been able to keep the country intact and united for over two centuries, useless and unsuitable.
The meeting of the Forum of Federal States that took place in India few months ago came to the conclusion that Nepal should not jump into federalism right away. However, in Nepal since decision making process is neither participatory nor inclusive; we have to follow the decision of political leaders. Since this decision has already been made it is futile debate over it. Therefore, in my opinion the debate should be directed towards how federalism will help the country politically, socially and raise the standard of life of Nepalis. Generally, there is a three-tier system, but in my opinion we should develop a four-tier system (central, state, district and local) with all the rights of federalism except the right to secession. District and local level should be completely under provincial or state government. If it was possible to incorporate the Baeesaye-Chaubeesaye principalities into a single state during the unification of Nepal then it is surely possible to manage a definite number of provincial states with numerous ethnicities, language and culture.
The proposed federal governing system is different in many aspects than the one that existed in the Panchayat system. There was indirect election system during the Panchayat era whereas, there is compulsory direct representative system with first-past-the-post electoral system. Secondly, the Panchayat election system was not inclusive but the proposed system would be fully inclusive. Thirdly, the proposed system shall be based on complete democratic norms and values. Fourthly, during the Panchayat the state managed the natural resources but now the right to its utilization will rest upon the provincial areas as well as the central government. Fifthly, the fixation of taxes on various bases will be rest upon the various levels of government, which was not the case during the Panchayat era.
A mixed type of federal system can be adopted by deciding provinces based on geography, Ilaka (Area) based on caste/ethnicity and local units based on language. The proportion of representation should be one for one lakh people in the center, one in 50,000 in the province, one in 10,000 in the Ilaka (Area) and one in 2,000 in a local unit. There should be a bi-cameral legislature in the center. The Upper House should be organized with the representatives elected from provinces, areas and local units on complete proportional basis. Likewise, the Lower House should be organized with representatives elected on first-past-the-post basis and at other levels the Provincial Council will be uni-cameral.
The number of provinces will be as per the need of the country. In regards to our country, which has ample hydro resources based potentialities, thus should be based on the areas geographically demarcated by river basin and ensuring the equitable distribution of resources amongs the states. There is a risk and possibility of separatist voices and disintegration if there is unequal economic distribution and few numbers of autonomous provinces than needed. Therefore, there should be six provinces on the basis of river basin, population and land territory of the country.
The political leaders do not keep in mind various issues then the future generations will suffer. Firstly, we should be aware of national unity, pride, integrity and sovereignty. Secondly, due to the geographical nature of our country, most of the provinces will be directly connected into the international border. If these provinces established incognito relations with the neighboring countries or their provinces then the central government may be politically in a vulnerable state. Thus, external aspects need to be taken in to account seriously. If this should happen the central government would face great difficulty implementing its foreign policy.
Moreover, if there are different parties at the center and the provincial government, then there will be increased chances of instability and difficulty in mobility inside the country because Mahendra Highway is the only access to travel accross the country. Thirdly, enmity can increase between the center and the provinces due to economic disparities among the provinces. Therefore, the Constituent Assembly should do its extensive homework before implementing federalism.
|
|
|
