Federalism in Nepal - Management and Implementation

Management and Implementation

The Constituent Assembly (CA) of Nepal in its very first meeting held on May 20, 2008 formally declared Nepal a Federal Democratic Republic. In conformity to this declaration, the Interim Constitution was duly amended and elections in the assembly have been held for the positions of the president and vice-president. However, the federal state structures have yet to be formed. Unlike declaring the country a republic, the federal state structure cannot be formed by mere agitation and declaration. For this, it is essential to visualize federal constituent units at the very outset. Nepal does not have the historic circumstances on its side as in the United States or Switzerland where already functioning state entities with long history of separate political and administrative existence came forward to form a new federation. The territory comprising Nepal which has long been administrated as a unitary state has now to be carved into different self-governing provinces. For this purpose, Nepal has to identify the principles and foundations for creating new provinces and establish consensus regarding them. Notwithstanding some risks and apprehensions, there has been a general consensus at political level in favor of federalism. A glimpse of manifestos or commitments expressed by political parties during the CA elections and the election outcomes thereafter confirms the comprehensive mandate of the people for the federal state. However, the entire gamut of work to translate this mandate to forming state structure and administrative apparatus remains to be realized. A few political parties have initiated some homework at their party levels. However, at the state level, apart from few ad hoc agreements and understandings, not even a minimum of spade work has been carried out (text should be amended here after in this sentence) till the time of going to press of this publication.

To transform the state into a federal nation, it would be imperative for the constitution to specify at least in broad terms the names of geographical regions and identity of population to constitute the federal units. The names of provinces would have to be listed in the constitution itself. In the same way, the provincial administrative structure – formation, functions and powers of the executive, legislature and judiciary – would have to be clearly specified in the constitution along with the provision of division of powers and jurisdiction between the centre and provinces. The constitutional framework for a federal state could be prepared through experts teams to work on various constitutional and technical issues such as carving state boundaries, choosing names for provinces, identifying the systems of governance and electoral processes, classification and management of natural resources, revenue allocation and sharing of resources, fiscal management, conflict resolution mechanism in case of disputes between the centre and province or between the provinces, among others. But to demarcate the boundary lines of provinces, a separate technical task force can be assigned even after the constitution is adopted and it would be an appropriate process. Once the constitution is adopted and the state structure is formalized, federalism enters to the stage of governance/administration. The state will be considered to have been formally transformed into a federal polity only after elections are held for the provinces and legislature, executive and judiciary with proper administrative structures are formed in place.

Federalism is a new exercise for Nepal. Until a few years ago, federalism was an academic subject for students of political science and constitutional system, which has now emerged as a political reality of the Nepali state. As a result, there is a paucity of studies and expertise in this field. Since the last few years, various ethnic groups and Madhesi communities have brought federalism at the forefront of the issue of state restructuring. A number of studies, reflections and proposals have been presented in this context (Neupane, 2000; Acharya & Khanal, 2002; Shrestha, 2003; Khanal, 2004; Yadav, 2003; Yonjan, 2004; Gurung, 2004; Bhattachan, 2003; Baral, 2004; Lawati, 2005). However, these studies offer less of substantial discussion on federal state theories, concepts, values, exercises and experimentation than sentimental expression on these issues. No doubt these studies have their significance, but formation of state structure and operationalization of administration cannot be achieved on sentiments only. While there are a number of universally acknowledged values of a federal state, there are also models and experiences of various countries before us. These matters can be of relevance to us. But we need not copy and adopt them, though their studies can help us broaden our understanding and devise suitable alternatives.

Currently of the 193 UN member nations, 24 are classified as federal states. Nepal has just proclaimed itself a federal state. Iraq, Italy, Sudan and the Philippines are taking steps towards federal system. U.K., France, Japan and two dozen other countries have political systems with autonomous regions which have features of federal system of governance (Watts, 2008). Federalism has emerged as the most widespread system of governance – a political reality of the 21st century. However, within federalism, each state maintains its own structural framework, develops its own constitutional practices and many things differ from each other. This is considered natural because each county has its own specific historical background, geographical conditions, socio-cultural make up, life style of people, and political-economic structure. While creating new state structures, all of these issues will have to be addressed appropriately. Nepal cannot expect a well formed federal system to present itself before the nation on a single morning. For this a lot of homework, comprehensive consensus on all sides, understanding, agreement and coordination will be required. At present, federalism is at a very initial stage; a lot of ground is yet to be covered by way of giving continuity, refinement and development in this regard.