Events & Issues

New Delhi, 28 September 2015       

Nepal’s New Constitution

INCLUSIVE POLITICS VITAL

By Dr.S.Saraswathi

(Former Director, ICSSR, New Delhi)

After Pakistan, a new development in another neighbouring country has become a cause of worry for India.  Namely, Nepal’s new Constitution proclaiming a new secular, federal, democratic and republican structure.

Though a matter to rejoice, there are some details which may trigger internal disturbances which are neither good for Nepal or India.  These relate to the promise of inclusive politics through a federal system of Government.

The new Constitution was adopted by elected representatives in Kathmandu earlier this month which gave the finishing stroke to a long drawn peace process witnessed in this land-locked nation for nearly a decade.  Recall, the process which started in 2006 with the outbreak of the Loktantra Andolan Movement and a civil war ended with a Comprehensive Peace Accord which included a federal Constitution and accommodation of ethnic minorities.

However, the Constitution belied the expectations of some ethnic groups living in the Terai region in southern Nepal bordering India. Protests are ongoing in this region and over 40 people are reported dead in violence.

Notwithstanding, the Nepalese President’s assertions when releasing the document, “Our country is multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, multi-religious, and multi-cultural. This new document will safeguard the rights of all Nepali brothers and sisters”.

Indeed, this observation is politically significant in view of the country’s small size and the tough problem of governing a plural society also divided by levels of development.  Undeniably, federalism in Nepal must fulfil the twin object of protecting the plural culture and eliminating inequalities and discriminations among its citizens.   

The Constitution’s major feature is that it marks the beginning of a democratic, secular Nepal in the place of the theocratic monarchy which came to an end in 2008.

True, substantial changes in the structure of Government and its major principles in a neighbouring country with which India has strong religious, cultural, language, and family values ties besides historical connections naturally evoke different responses from political and non-political circles.  Especially against the backdrop they are linked to future relations between New Delhi-Kathmandu and are crucial for both.

Already, the Foreign Ministry has drawn Kathmandu’s attention to the importance of resolving differences through dialogue in a peaceful atmosphere free from intimidation.  The necessity to arrive at a broad-based acceptance of the new Constitution has been stressed.  In its own interest, India needs democracy, development, and peace in Nepal.

Pertinently, while the Constitution has received the support of two-thirds majority in the Constituent Assembly, the noticeably absentees are those residing in the Terais. In fact, the Terai Madesh Democratic Party has rejected the provisions regarding demarcation of states, citizenship, proportional system, and electoral constituency.  Clearly, this reaction does not augur well for a plural society embarking on a new political venture.

Certainly, there are varieties of federal Constitutions and governance models world-wide. Remember, in place of just four  functioning independent federal Governments at the end of  World War II, i.e. Australia, Canada, Switzerland and USA there are today, about 30 federal States providing various models. 

These types offer both success stories and failures leading to rewriting of Constitutions, notwithstanding that some of these federations have also faced civil wars. Moreover, internal cleavages within countries may find a cushioning effect in federal arrangements, but pressures given by the   units on the centre and among themselves may pose a threat to the nation.

Besides, there are Parliamentary federations in Canada, Australia, India, Malaysia and South Africa which follow the Westminster model and continue to remain in the Commonwealth.  Nepal, like Ethiopia presents a non-Commonwealth federation replacing a traditional monarchy.

Pertinently, federal systems in western and southern European countries --- Germany, Austria, Spain, and Belgium etc do not present a common model. While USA, Switzerland and Brazil boasts of Presidential federations.  

Sri Lanka, for instance, presents a deeply divided society facing tremendous hurdles in working a peaceful federal system. It has been trying a model in between devolution and federation.

Importantly, Nepal has to learn lessons from other countries and avoid the pangs that may arise from the problems of “exclusion’.  Its Constitution has to provide a “Republic” and a “progressive democratic federation” as per the mandate given to the Constituent Assembly.

Historically, Nepal has been a highly centralized monarchical State ruled from Kathmandu.  Here federation is a process of dividing power that was hitherto concentrated.  The 1990 Nepalese Constitution while acknowledging the Himalayan kingdom as “multi-ethnic and multi-lingual” created a highly centralized Government which declared Hinduism as the official religion and Nepali as the official language.  

Notably, Nepal provides an example of building a federation by division, which also means a break with the past.   Kathmandu has to prevent internal fissures over carving the boundaries of federal units.

Further, two principles are contending to be the core principle of federalism --- identity and development.   Differences over internal borders between provinces are bound to raise controversies as application of the two principles might not yield the same divisions.

What’s more, a regional Party Terai Congress has been demanding an autonomous Terai region since 1950s, but then federalism had few takers. But since 1990 with the rise of ethnicity and ethnic politics there has been a reinvigorated demand for inclusive politics, read wider political participation.

However, in the current practical politics milieu internal conflicts are not about preserving and promoting cultural identities but about access to political participation and economic development.  Whereby, ethnic identity is a factor for mobilization and not the end of mobilization. 

This is true of India also where re-organization of States which was done on linguistic basis is today undergoing revision for development and access to development leading to bifurcation of linguistic States.

As it stands, Nepal’s new Constitution has carved seven States but their boundaries are not yet demarcated. Certainly, one can foresee problems as some ethnic groups like those from Terai are not hopeful of getting advantageous demarcations.  

As the new Constitution has reduced the percentage of Parliament members to be elected by proportional representation system from 58% fixed by the Interim Constitution to 45%.  Thus, marginalized groups have reason to apprehend lessening of their representation and the corresponding increase of higher castes and   socially, educationally and economically upper sections.  This needs to be addressed.

As it stands, a political concession once given to a group can rarely be reduced or eliminated.    A classic example is India’s reservation p, a device to which eligible groups cling fast allowing no changes even if in the long-term it is of interests to those concerned.  

In sum, even as the Constitution provides for setting up of Constitutional Commissions on national natural resources and finance, national inclusion, indigenous nationalities, and on Madhesi, Terai and Muslims to advance group interests which is  unavoidable.  They need to realize that nations --- rulers and citizens --- must build national consciousness transcending their regional, religious, linguistic and other parochial sentiments.  ----- INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)