The F word

Just five years after ushering in the federal system, many of Nepal’s political leaders and the civil society have questioned its usefulness and say it has in fact centralised power even more.

But have we really allowed federalism to work? Have the top leaders in the main political parties and in provinces actually devolved power? And is five years not too short a time to judge the suitability of a governing system?

Writing in his column in Nepali Times 20 years ago, Dhawal SJB Rana, now the MP of the anti-federal monarchist RPP, advocated for a federal state for true decentralisation. Excerpts from the article published in issue #141 18-24 April 2003:

The proponents of federalism in Nepal rightfully state that democracy, development, culture, heritage, administration, economy, people’s participation, accountability, responsiveness, justice, inclusiveness are enhanced under a federal form of government. Theoretically, regional units should be more sensitive to the demands and special needs of the local inhabitants and be forced to include castes, religions and socio-economic groupings to participate in the administration of the state, irrespective of its percentage in relation to the total percentage of the nation.

The federal state is by definition more inclusive than a unitary one as the ethnic and tribal minorities, and indigenous people get more space to share political, economic and social power thus addressing deeply-entrenched economic and social inequities. This in turn works as a safety-valve to release ethnic, communal and caste tensions within society. Even after 12 years of multiparty democracy, the people of Nepal are not satisfied with the results, and do not feel that the country is headed towards an inclusive democracy. This is mainly due to continuous upheavals at the centre that has led to disillusionment. 

From archive material of Nepali Times of the past 20 years, site search: www.nepalitimes.com