Nepal urged to avoid Ethiopian style ethnic states

HOMRAJ ACHARYA ,

Why choose to have ethnic considerations in state formation in Nepal? One reason is that states with pronounced cultural diversity seem to have more difficulty in reaching democratic outcomes than ethnically homogeneous ones. 

To the extent that identity-based interests are already clustered geographically — which is not the case in much of Nepal, but is the case in a significant portion of it — it makes sense to build on this and attempt to turn it into a stabilizing feature, rather than ignoring it or wishing it away. But, the most compelling reason is simply that it has been demanded by significant groups of people and is widely understood to have been promised by all major political parties at various times.

Effective democracy depends on the practice of democracy at many levels, large and small. For this to have meaning, it must be accompanied by actual decision-making power. In the past, those with the power to make policies and decisions had either been established members of the power structure or in its close periphery. This has meant that capacity-building has been minimal. Decentralization of power is essential for building capacity in the long run. Regional or federal arrangements provide a platform for developing an understanding of the practice of governance.

There is wide agreement among scholars who have looked at this issue that large parts of Nepal simply do not have a majority, or even a plurality of a particular ethnic or linguistic group. It would not be possible to create a Nepal that consists entirely of ethnically-based states, while remaining true to population realities. 

Yet, in cases where such a state can be created with a true majority or plurality, and where such a state has been demanded, it would be wise to craft boundaries and, when possible, a state name to reflect the ethnic, linguistic and cultural heritage of that region of Nepal. Nothing is lost to the country as a whole to have federal states whose boundaries and names reflect an existing reality in regards to the composition of its population.

It must, of course, be understood that using ethnic heritage as a basis of state boundary creation and naming is not the same as saying that a state “belongs” in some way to its largest ethnic group. It is not necessary to be part of a particular ethnic group to share in the sense that a state has a particular character influenced by its population make-up.

 It is not necessary to be a Tharu to be a proud resident of a heavily populated Tharu region, understanding the language and identifying with the unique flavor that Tharu culture adds to the rich cultural mix of one’s home region. Ideally, the creation of states – including ethnic states where it applies — can encourage a sense of pride and healthy competition to make one’s home state the “best” place to live, and to find a creative and unique niche for competing that effectively uses the resources of the state.

Of course, in the matter of ethnic states, a great deal has to do with the way that ethnicity is understood, and whether an “in group/out group” power dynamic is set up. This is always a danger, but it is already a danger in Nepal. Failing to recognize ethnicity where it matters, and where it is already a factor and a motive for agitation, will not remove the danger of oppositional identity politics.

The danger comes, of course, if discriminatory laws are created within those states. But that can best be controlled by ensuring that federal non-discrimination laws have primacy and that the judiciary is effective. Every effort must be made to ensure that recognizing the contributions and heritage of one population, and its historic presence in a state, by honoring the state with their name is not a license to discriminate against others.

Giving consideration to the economy, ethnic and linguistic realities and sustainable tax base for the states to generate funds, the Federal Republic of Nepal would benefit by having 10 to 15 states, of which no more than half reflecting linguistic and ethnic identity. When considering this, the federal constitution would need to direct the states where no state will establish, promulgate, or otherwise declare any laws, policies or directives (or support practices and activities) that discriminate against any group based on ethnicity, language, caste, religion, or origin.

 A state ignoring the federal constitution may, after appropriate and formalized series of warnings through the Supreme Court, have its independence revoked and be ruled directly by federal authority. Certainly, Nepal must avoid the Ethiopian example, in which the preamble of the constitution avoids the words “Ethiopian people” but talks instead of the “nations, nationalities, and peoples of Ethiopia.” Article 8 (1) stipulates that the sovereign power resides in the nations, nationalities and peoples of Ethiopia, while Article 39 (1) goes the furthest, even granting the right of secession.

 Whatever the rationale and impact in Ethiopia, we would view this in the case of Nepal as profoundly unwise. It must be clear that the nation’s legitimacy does not derive from ethnic, linguistic, caste and other groups, but from the Nepali people as individuals and as a whole polity. Legitimacy derives from the consent of the governed as thinking individuals, not as representatives of a type.

Source: www.thehimalayantimes.com, Himalayan Times.