Feel free to include your comment here in the box. See posted comments below:
Please note: Your email will not be posted

Read Posted Comments Here:

Ashok Mathuran:

Why Feudalism is a Mistake for Nepal – particularly if based on caste and ethnic identity

It is understandable that those who have felt marginalised in the past by the way the political system operated have reason to demand a change. Whatever new system of political representation is approved should adequately represent both majority and minority views. But there is no need whatsoever to introduce a new and potentially divisive political system when all of the elements for an effective democracy can be put in place without such a dangerous initiative.

The demographic characteristics of the country need to be taken into consideration. Clearly, electoral units in the terai need to be adjusted to take population density into consideration, thereby immediately giving the terai voters a greater voice, properly representing their numerical importance. Equally, the sparse populations in remote mountain areas, whose often desperate concerns have rarely been effectively represented in Kathmandu, require special measures to ensure their voice also is heard. As for those who have felt systematically excluded from the political process, by virtue of social class, gender, caste or ethnicity, there are many ways in which ‘special interests’ may be provided with a voice through the system of political representation, whether by quotas or by parties giving specific emphasis to their needs and interests. None of these genuine concerns, however, requires the introduction of federalism.

Many believe that ‘regional’ structures and forms of intervention of some kind are needed, for planning and development purposes, but there is little agreement as to the basis on which these should be constructed – should they emphasise common geographical and economic features it seek to combine different ecological regions to promote greater inter-activity. Much here depends on the objective and purpose. But if the purpose is not for planning or development, but to ensure a new and additional form of political representation, then there is a serious risk that this will add to the weight of government and bureaucracy and open up a new arena for political struggle – not something wanted by most of the Nepalese population, even if popular with politicians seeking to gain power at this level.

If government and administration is required at an ‘intermediate’ level – and the old ‘anchal’ system of a provincial governor that existed under the Panchayat Raj comes – then it would be quite possible to constitute regional planning commissions, answerable both to the districts and to the national government, appointed to implement and administer regional programmes identified and approved at the district and national level. Alternatively, special boards could be constituted by the National Assembly, with all-party representation, as ‘parliamentary committees’ to consider the special needs and interests of specific groups and regions, and to report back to the government and the National Assembly.   

If, however, a federal structure is considered overwhelmingly desirable, and those who support the idea can explain clearly what its real advantages would be – which no-one has done as yet – then it needs to be able to respond to the very real concern that the political entities created under the new system will promote only fragmentation and division, and even the potential for secession, when Nepal desperately needs a clear and coherent national development strategy devised and implemented by a strong government which has the confidence of the Nepalese people as a whole.

The idea of between 10 and 20 different ‘relatively autonomous’ states or regions, each with their own particular priorities and concerns, representing their own distinctive electorates and governing in the light of those priorities, potentially undermining the approved policies of the national government and the strength of the National Assemby, is bad enough. But when those new political entities are predicated on the idea of caste and ethnic identity as the determining criterion – creating ‘ethnic states or regions’ – then a further danger is created by this innovation and it becomes not only un-necessary and undesirable, but positively undemocratic.

If caste and ethnicity is given priority as the defining characteristic of candidates and voters and indeed of the political entities themselves (the new ‘states or regions’) within which politicians and electorate interact, they are no longer free to present themselves or to vote – and the government is not longer free to operate - on any other basis than that of caste and ethnicity. The concerns of the poor and socially disadvantaged, of women, of dalits, of those living in remote areas, etc. – indeed ALL other concerns - are obscured and marginalised by the dominance of ‘identity politics’ framed only in terms of caste and ethnicity. This is deeply undemocratic, and oppressive.

Finally, ‘identity politics’ constructed on the basis of caste and ethnicity leads to social and political divisions along those lines, deepening already-existing cleavages and promoting new ones where they do not exist. Every region and district and most VDCs in Nepal constitute a mosaic of ethnic groups and castes, living together usually in reasonable harmony; but whatever divisions exist will be exacerbated by an identity politics based on caste and ethnicity. At the worst, these divisions will become the basis for open enmity and hostility, and even, where majority groups gain power at the level of the new ‘state’ or ‘region’ the basis for ethnic cleansing and new forms of violence and conflict – the last thing that the Nepalese people wish for, after a protracted decade of war.   

David Seddon