E-Kantipur

Proportional representation and ethnic autonomy are two mechanisms for making multi-ethnic Nepal inclusive and responsive.  However, while proportional representation has been accepted in principle by major political parties and progressive sections of the society, autonomy is still opposed by segments of the society like Rastriya Jana Morcha, Rastriya Brahmin Samaj and some “progressive” dominant members of the “civil” society. 

Proportional representation is necessary to include the traditionally excluded groups in various organs of the state but it will not be sufficient to address cultural discrimination, nor will it allow different communities to live according to their culture, values and worldviews.  Even with perfect representation, numerous groups will become permanent minorities.  For example, Chepang with around fifty thousand population will always be a permanent minority.  According to the 2001 census, twenty-nine ethnic groups have a population of less than a hundred thousand and their influence in public policies will be minimal even if they are proportionally represented at the center. Even the Magars, the second largest ethnic group, are four times smaller than CHHE (caste hill Hindu Elite), and will thus have considerable less weight in policy decisions even if perfectly proportionately represented.

As the largest ethnic group with thirty-one percent population, the CHHE will continue to have more influence at the central policy level than other ethnic groups. Other ethnic groups will have to live under central level policies, including those that guide socio-cultural issues, which are likely to be highly influenced by the CHHE.  Beyond ethnic plurality, the CHHE forms majority alliances of variable geometry with other population groups on various important socio-cultural issues. For instance, the CHHE form an eighty percent Hindu majority with Hindu Madhesis and Dalits.  On issues of hill nationalism, they form an anti-Madhesi alliance with hill indigenous nationalities and hill Dalits that has the weight of two thirds of the population behind them. The CHHE become a near majority with hill Dalits as native speakers of native language (Khas-Nepali). On untouchability issue, the CHHE, Madhesis and indigenous nationalities form 85 per cent majority that often perpetuate the practice against Dalits. Thus, even if proportional representation based on ethnicity or caste is achieved in all governance sectors, each marginalized group may continue to face marginalization in socio-cultural spheres that affect and matter to them whereas CHHE is privileged in each and every sphere.  A complex society like Nepal hence has to go beyond proportionality to attain equality and justice for all its citizens belong to various ethnic or caste groups.

Equality among groups can be provided through group autonomy, be it through territorial provinces, local autonomy for territorially concentrated smaller groups and non-territorially for groups that are dispersed.  Since larger groups dominate democratic politics in ethnically divided societies, autonomy will promote equality among diverse groups by allowing communities to self-govern themselves, if they wish, in areas that matter to them. Without group equality in multi-national states, individual equality cannot be achieved nor can groups and their individual members develop and grow.

Autonomy does not mean that the groups will live in isolation and follow all traditional practices.  Autonomy allows the concerned groups to decide aspects of culture that they want to retain and protect.  They will continue to share many things with other communities but it will be based on equality and justice and on terms and conditions that are acceptable to the groups.  This is an inherently democratic right.   Group autonomy will thus help to protect minorities from external threats emanating from large and powerful groups and foster developing common symbols and practices that are acceptable to all.

Territorial autonomy to ethnic groups through federalism is the most well-known mechanism, and has been widely debated in Nepal.  It is necessary and can provide autonomy to various groups for self-governance in regions of their concentration.  As Nepal has many small communities and others that are territorially spread out, some have expressed concerns that rights of new minorities within provinces will be compromised.  However, as elsewhere this problem can be addressed and Nepal’s unique context makes this issue less problematic.  First, demographic status of provincial dominant group will prevent such tendencies in most cases.  Except for the CHHE in far west, other provincially designated groups do not form majorities.  This will work as safeguards towards provincial minority groups.   Electoral politics that will necessitate forming coalition with other groups will make it costly for the provincial dominant groups to tyrannize the provincial minorities.  Further, minority rights and human rights should be protected all over the country, especially in the far west provinces where CHHE form absolute majorities.  In addition to the provinces, the central government should have the right to enforce such provisions. 

However, beyond protection, positive measures to guarantee autonomy of remaining groups are needed.  First, like the thematic committee of the Constituent Assembly has proposed, local autonomy to small groups that are territorially concentrated are necessary.  However, this provision should not be limited to 22 groups that the thematic committee has identified.  If additional ethnic groups, including Bahun, Chhetris, members of groups who live outside their designated provinces, and subsections of Dalit and Muslims prefer to have local autonomy in smaller areas where they are concentrated, they should have that right.  Second, non-territorial federalism is necessary to enable groups that are dispersed to enjoy some amount of autonomy. This will facilitate members of groups to follow their culture and lifestyles as they wish even if they do not have a homeland and are not concentrated territorially. Remaining Dalit and Muslims who cannot form local autonomy units can benefit from this mechanism that gives rights over particular health care, school, and culture.  The principle of non-territorial federalism can also be useful to grant autonomy to members of groups that are either plural or majority at the center (CHHE) or provinces (CHHE and non-CHHE identity groups) but are dispersed in other regions.  For instance, this provision would allow a Bahun to follow his or her culture and live according to his or her norms and values in Limbuwan, Tamangsaling or any other provinces.  Likewise it will allow Limbus and Tamangs living outside Limbuwan and Tamangsaling to live their lives based on their preferences. These webs of five mechanisms and processes (territorial autonomy at provincial level, electoral politics at provincial level, territorial autonomy at local level, minority rights and human rights, and non-territorial autonomy) would facilitate protecting rights and enabling self-governance of all groups everywhere in Nepal and make the state more inclusive and responsive.      

Lawoti is the author of Federal State-building: Challenges in Framing the Nepali Constitution, Bhrikuti, 2010

Post Your Comment

Please note that all the fields marked * are mandatory.
* Full Name
* Address
* Email Address
* Comment
* Captcha	Get another CAPTCHA code
Note:	Comments containing abusive words or slander shall not be published.