Living with self-determination
The right to self-determination and autonomy of individuals and groups are fundamental elements of democracy 
The right to self-determination has generated intense debate in Nepal as the country attempts to finalise its constitution writing process. The debate has largely been based on discussions of legal provisions and classic Marxist and Leninist perspectives. They have provided useful insights, but are not sufficient to understand how the right to self-determination may affect people and how the principle can be used to take Nepal forward by promoting equality, justice, peace and co-existence.
The right to self-determination is a fundamental element of democracy, which presumes that each adult is the best judge of his or her own good and interests because an individual is better informed about his or her needs, wants, abilities and aspirations and hence each individual should be given the right to determine (self-determination) how they go about their lives. The underlying premise is that common people, whether educated or not, may not be informed about nuances of each and every policy, but overall, they are capable of understanding the public good and their general interests, and can usually reach decisions that are more appropriate to their wellbeing, including in electing leadership to represent their interests. That is why even an uneducated adult is allowed to cast a vote as a political equal in a democracy. In doing so, the individual practices the right to self-determination by selecting, or not, a political party and policy or other preferences.
The right to self-determination thus provides autonomy to individuals by allowing them to decide what is best for them: which political party or leader they will support, which dress they will wear, what organization they will join, a faith to follow or not, and so on. Those who argue that the right to self-determination is useless principle expose their undemocratic tendencies.
The logic of self-determining individual follows that if groups of individuals decide to choose certain political parties or identities, it is their fundamental right in a democracy. Hence, if a group of people choose to identify with a certain identity and follow certain values, norms, culture and lifestyle, the democratic principle of the right to self-determination allows that. It is a different matter if people decide not to choose any political party or identity but no one can take away the right in a democratic polity.
In principle the right to self-determination permits secession and as a result has generated fear among a section of nation-state centric people, including in Nepal. New states have been formed, however, whether the preceding state recognized the right to self-determination or not if a collective was unhappy within an existing state and was capable to launch an effective movement of separation, gained popular backing from its target community and when the international environment was propitious. This has unfortunately led to an understanding among many people that the right to self-determination as the right to create separate states for nations, even when that is not the sole or even main interpretation.
Many groups like the indigenous peoples who are demanding self-determination rights are not demanding separate states. Most of the people and groups demanding the right to self-determination in Nepal are not seeking separate states but group autonomy. Only a few underground Madhesi and an indigenous organization are seeking independence and currently support for these groups is not strong. Majority of the people seeking self-determination rights are still envisioning self-determination as ethnic autonomy.
Autonomy entails protection against external threats but not the right to dominate members or other groups, according to Will Kymlicka in his modern classic Multicultural Citizenship (1995). Individuals and groups seeking autonomy should be ready to respect the autonomy of other individual and groups. The group differentiated rights is for protection against external threats that will undermine self-governance and not for dominating or encroaching others’ right to self-govern. If we accept this formulation, Nepal should adopt various mechanisms to provide autonomy to its diverse population: territorial autonomy to those who are territorially concentrated and are large enough to maintain a provincial government, local autonomy to smaller territorially concentrated groups (including non-native groups that are territorially concentrated) in the provinces, non-territorial autonomy to groups that are scattered across many parts of the country as well as to members of provincially dominated groups that have migrated out of their native land. These different tools do not award the same rights but will provide some degree of autonomy based on different groups’ characteristics, such as size, territorial distribution, and identity formation and mobilization. Having some level of autonomy is better than having none and living under others fancies and preferences.
Living together
Self-determination and autonomy do not mean that individuals and communities will live in isolation. It only points out that in arenas where individuals and communities are different they have the right to do things differently in those arenas based on their own judgments. In many other realms, where they share needs, aspirations and interests with other individuals and groups, they will interact, socialize and work and live together. They will do this by their own consent, and not based on dictates of other powerful groups.
A Limbu in Limbuwan may follow and consume his or her own faith, culture, food that is different from other Nepalis settled in the region or elsewhere but the Limbu and non-Limbus will share many other things, such as Nepali citizenship, passport, certain food and practices, and may other things. The main point here is that each person and group will have the right to decide what they want to do and how they will live their lives: which part of their traditions they want to continue, which aspects and elements of others’ cultures they will share, and so on. A powerful group should not be allowed to decide what other groups should follow. The principle of self-determination and autonomy does not allow any one the right to impose ones’ views, values, norms and cultures on others without their consent.
Such a principle and process will promote equality and justice among groups and individuals as the concerned people will decide about their lives, including what they would like to share with others, and domination will be reduced or eliminated. When different groups can live the way they want to, many of the conflicts against domination, discrimination and oppression will not be necessary and peace has higher possibility of prevailing. If and when groups identify and formulate commonalities based on compromise and consent of all groups, such a shared understanding will be acceptable to more people and will develop, broaden and strengthen a sense of larger community. Then a person can be a member of an ethnic/nation as well as a Nepali citizen with equal rights and opportunities simultaneously. In a world where most people have multiple identities, most Nepalis’ aspirations will be fulfilled by the multi-cultural citizenship that will emerge from the genuine practice of the right to self-determination and autonomy.
Posted on: 2011-12-16 02:51
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 :
