Oped»
Why countries disintegrate
K, APR 15 -
Some political leaders, commentators and media personalities have alleged that federalism may facilitate disintegration of Nepal. This fear seems to have caught the imagination of some sections of the public. This is a valid popular concern because some “federal” countries like the USSR, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and Pakistan disintegrated. However, the fear is based on incomplete information and analysis.
First, unitary states have disintegrated. Eritrea became independent from Ethiopia in 1993 while East Timor (Timor Leste) gained independence from Indonesia in 2002.Somaliland separated from Somalia in 1991. The United Arab Republic also broke up in 1961 after a short life of four years. This shows that disintegration is common to both “federal” and unitary countries. The disintegration of the communist federal countries, however, caught more attention partly because many countries emerged out of them, but also because the decline of communism was celebrated in
the West.
Second, some commentators point out that the USSR, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and Pakistan, despite the designation, were not truly federal, which is defined as highly decentralised polities. Most of the authority was held by the central leadership, and there really was not any meaningful regional or ethnic autonomy in those countries. Hence, except in name, those countries were de facto unitary states. According to this argument, all the countries that broke up were, in fact, either declared or de facto unitary states.
Disintegration of both unitary and “federal” countries, if the second point above is not acceptable to some, shows that governance structures are not the underlying factor for the break up. Some other factors are effecting disintegration. One common element in all the countries that disintegrated was increasing ethnic disenchantment due to an absence of genuine ethnic autonomy. The lack of accommodation of ethnic groups increased disillusionment and contributed to eventual disintegration of the countries when political opportunities became available.
Federalism, on the other hand, has united countries. In the US, many states came together to form a single state, whereas in Switzerland cantons with different language speakers and religious followers, often in conflict beforehand, came together. India observers cite the role of linguistic, religious and ethnic federalism in keeping the diverse country integrated despite serious reservation expressed by some observers during its independence.
The contrasting outcomes raise the question, under what circumstances does federalism integrate or disintegrate countries? A comparison of successful and failed cases reveal an interesting pattern. Federalism in democratic societies united, whereas federalism in some non-democratic countries disintegrated. “Federalism”, which was awarded from the top in the autocratic and former communist countries, may have addressed some of the nationalities’ initial concerns, but other major issues remained unresolved. Lack of an open environment did not permit progressive articulations of evolving demands and their successive accommodation. Ethnic disenchantments may have, in fact, grown under the surface. The non-accommodation of cultural rights not amenable to the rulers may have sown the seeds for secession.
On the other hand, societies where federalism was introduced in an open environment, based on mutual negotiations and compromises among conflicting parties, unified countries and contributed to the consolidation and deepening of democracies. The open environment in those societies also allowed for progressive demands to be aired and addressed in successive years. Federalism, thus, helped to prevent separation by ensuring self-governance rights to ethnic groups. On the basis of a worldwide comparative analysis, Ted Robert Gurr concluded, “Neither in theory nor in practice is there anything inherent in autonomy agreements that lead to future civil war or disintegration of the state. The recent historical record shows that, on balance, autonomy agreements can be an effective means for managing regional conflicts.”
Beyond the issues discussed above, a number of other factors indicate that separatist movements will face more challenges in Nepal. Scholars have pointed out that new countries have higher chances of breaking up because different groups have a memory of governing. The USSR, Yugoslavia, Pakistan, Czechoslovakia, Indonesia/Timor-Leste, Somalia/Somaliland, and Ethiopia/Eritrea that broke up were relatively new countries or regions were appended to the states relatively recently. Nepal, on the other hand, has a history of more than two centuries as a state. Most autonomy seeking groups in Nepal do not have a recent memory of being independent. Likewise, scholars have argued that external threats often unite countries internally. India is widely perceived as a neighbourhood bully, especially among the educated and politically aware citizens in Nepal. An anti-India based nationalism, strong in Nepal, will also contribute to keeping Nepal intact.
Status quoist critics argue that increasing self-governance may lead to separatism. Though this argument appears plausible, a counter question exposes its weakness. Why would members of ethnic groups support the secessionist demands of their elite if their major socio-cultural concerns are met? When socio-political, cultural and economic issues have been accommodated, groups will not have a strong drive to participate in costly separatist movements that require not only considerable time, energy and resources but also the willingness to sacrifice people’s lives for the cause.
Most marginalised groups have not yet demanded secession in Nepal. A few organisations of the Madhesi and indigenous nationalities have launched separatist movements in recent years, especially after the turn of the century; but to date, these organisations do not command significant support among the respective peoples. Whether those movements will receive wider support in the future will significantly depend upon the role of the state. If demands for ethnic autonomy are denied, it may fuel secessionist movements. Federalism was considered “slippery” in the 1970s in Sri Lanka when the Tamils demanded autonomy. After the denial of autonomy, thousands of people died in a secessionist movement that gripped the country. If federalism had been adopted in Sri Lanka, it could have undermined the secessionist tendencies and prevented widespread death and destruction.
Finally, those who raise the bogey of disintegration do not seem to see the empirical reality of the movements that are demanding ethnic autonomy in Nepal. The social justice movements are promoting integration. For instance, the Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities has brought together more than 50 indigenous nationalities while the Madhesi movement brought together different religious, linguistic and ethnic/caste groups of the Tarai. Even the anti-Madhesi movement led by the Tharus brought together Dalit, Muslims and other indigenous nationalities. Various groups from the mountain region are in the process of forming a Himali identity, and some have demanded a unified Himali state. These are processes of integration even if some dominant group members rightly perceive them as a threat to their group’s hegemony.
If the state and dominant group continue to discriminate and not accommodate ethnic demands, some of the existing umbrella organisations or new ones may opt for separatist movements, especially if they see no future in the emerging polity. If that occurs, it will increase the threat for Nepal’s integrity as the umbrella organisations would probably have a broader backing. Even if the country does not disintegrate, it may lead to violent ethnic conflicts as witnessed around the world. The people who are resisting accommodation of ethnic demands to protect their own ethnic interests will have to bear a much larger cost if violent ethnic civil wars were to arise.
(Professor Lawoti’s latest book is The Maoist Insurgency in Nepal: Revolution in the twenty-first century, London: Routledge, 2009)
Posted on: 2010-04-16 08:41
Headlines
Advertisements
