Divide and conquer
State restructuring has been a contentious issue for Nepal, and recently, this has led to the formation of the State Restructuring Commission to come up with a federal model to recommend to the government. My only interest in all this is that this commission avoids the pitfalls of ethnic federalism from the experiences of other countries. In particular Ethiopia has been taken as a model by Nepali politicians and ethnic activists to restructure Nepal. But both research and Ethiopian intellectuals say that ethnic federalism is a ticking bomb and that the earlier it explodes, the better, because only then can the real ‘house cleaning’ start. Published articles which analyse the experience of ethnic federalism come to the same conclusion.
While there is merit in the claims of ethnic activists that policies like unitary state structures and institutions to create a shared and over-arching national identity has oppressed particularistic ethnic attachments of various types, ethnic federalism is a perilous enterprise. This approach, in principle, is exclusionary, even though it has come into practice in the face of ethnic conflicts and ethnic wars. The assumption of the past governments in Nepal that ethnic diversity would foster divided loyalty and separatism, led to attempts to turn a blind eye to the issues of ethnic heterogeneity and ethnic interests. The new constitutional approach in Nepal to accommodate these interests is ethnic federalism, which is understood as the one that uses ethnic groups as units of self-government for accommodating ethnic groups’ cultural, linguistic and political claims. To achieve this purpose, the draft constitution has already divided the country into 14 states and, except for two, all others are ethnic states. The provision of 22 “special districts” has also been proposed for smaller ethnic groups to allow them to exercise a limited autonomy within their own territories. The other criterion followed is capability, but this has been kept in the shadows. Giving priority to identity in state restructuring means convergence of close communities with political communities, as there is also ethnic groups’ right to self-determination.
The justification for ethnic federalism in Nepal, like in few other places, was derived from the idea of ethno-nationalism—a belief that proclaims the distinctiveness of a particular people and their right to self rule in their homeland. The institutional arrangements, in principle, require that political and ethnic boundaries coincide. The idea of so many states and special districts in Nepal, as has been forwarded by the Constitutional Committee on state restructuring, is promised and intended to fulfil this idea of overlapping political boundaries with ethnic boundaries so that more and more communities can live in accordance with their historic traditions. But, in reality, this is not possible in many countries where there is ethnic plurality.
This is also the case in Nepal. Because we have a long history of the movement of peoples and many ethnicities reside in one area, it is impossible for there to be an overlap between the boundaries of political and ethnic communities. Moreover, as the ethnic boundaries are fluid, new groups have been created based on social, economic and political interest. As a result, there could be ethnic conflict if ethnic federalism is adopted in the constitution, and country is restructured accordingly. Yugoslavia and Rwanda are examples of this. Recently, Ethiopia faced severe ethnic problems as illustrated by the conflict in 1998 between the Gedeo and the Guji, two ethnic groups that claim decent from a common ancestor. It was their interest in controlling resources that led to the conflict.
The various possible positive benefits of ethnic federalism as claimed by ethnic fundamentalists have, in fact, not been seen in most cases. There are claims that ethnic federalism would provide membership for an individual to a community, which is essential for well-being and belongingness and that it would provide equality, strengthen democracy and improve the economy too. But, in fact, ethnic federalism is based on conservative and anti-liberal forms of nationalism. In such cases, individual rights have been sacrificed in the name of collective rights.
This form of federalism is unable to bring equality as the group which controls power will inevitably try to maintain superiority. This is what has happened in Ethiopia where one group (Tigrean) has increased its dominance in the army and government after ethnic federalism was implemented. Similarly, the argument that ethnic federalism provides a smaller unit of government and thus promotes political participation cannot be achieved unless there is an enabling environment.
From a human rights perspective, ethnic federalism is inherently problematic as it often fails to protect the rights of ethnic minorities. This is fundamentally at odds with the universally accepted principle of non-discrimination.
The economy is also an area where ethnic federalism could falter. Ethnic activists claim that it would lead to greater competition to attract investment. On the other hand, it is also likely (as seen in Nigeria) that ethnic rivalry and competition for control over natural resources could accelerate. Similarly, this type of federalism has the potential to restrict the mobility of labour, goods and capital across sub-national jurisdictions.
However, a total rejection of ethnic considerations in the constitution has not solved the aspirations of many ethnic groups and that it has led to ethnic violence and other political and economic problems. On the other hand, total dependence on ethnicity for institutional arrangements is unworkable at best and dangerous at worst. Therefore, a balance is necessary. This calls for constitution-makers and members of the State Restructuring Commission to carefully consider the dangers that ethnic federalism poses and to search for institutions that will be sustainable without impairing ethnic groups’ cultural, linguistic, and economic rights. At this juncture, we need to remember that ethnic federalism, as an attempt to link this to politics is an outcome of colonialism, and it is a colonial, or a neo-colonial trick, to keep the countries in the third world internally divided and weak.
Posted on: 2011-12-15 08:38
Post Your Comment
Today's Paper
The Kantipur in Print
FROM THE PAST 7 DAYS
ENTER KEYWORD OR DATE
FROM THE PAST 7 DAYS
ENTER KEYWORD OR DATE
Abin
All of them discussed the issue. The result was the same...and we have committed to continue discussions on the issue till midnight.
ADVERTISEMENTS
OUR PUBLICATION :
