‘Let’s not create new conflict in the name of federalism.’
Laxman Prasad Ghimire
Chief Whip, Nepali Congress
Legislature-Parliament
What are the indispensable elements for federalism to be sustainable?
It is necessary to pay attention that states are not dependent on others; at least, the states should able to manage its administrative expenses. There should be potential to develop natural resources in the future in the state. It is also necessary to look at the bases for generating employment within the state. Careful attention must be paid to ensure that any caste or community should not perceive itself to be excluded. Similarly, attention must also be paid to the ease and possibility of inter-state travel and transportation, and attention must be paid on creation of appropriate atmosphere for inter-state help and cooperation.
Which is appropriate for us, ethnic or non-ethnic federalism?
There should be no whiff of ethnicity in delineating the states.
Why no ethnic states?
In the proposed 14 ethnic states, no ethnicity has a majority. No ethnicity has more than 30% population. Any state based on one ethnicity but that excludes 68-70% of other ethnicities/groups cannot stand up to the problems related to ethnic problems likely to rise in the state. Making any ethnic group chief minister for two terms has the possibility of the creating instability. Therefore, a country with plural society like ours should not be divided along ethnicity-based states. If it is done, it will create problems.
Until now, the CA has not decided on the form of government to be adopted. In your opinion, which form of government is appropriate for us?
While drafting the constitution, attention should be given to issues that will have long-term consequences. This is not like laws that can be implemented once and repealed later. If a the president or prime minister is directly elected by people but without accountability to the parliament will impose his unbridled views and can gain a foothold and there is the risk of giving birth to a dictator.
In other countries including the USA, directly elected executive leaders have become dictators. Therefore, Nepali Congress does not want to give birth to a dictator through the constitution itself. We want a multiparty parliamentary system based on pluralism that elects prime ministers from the parliamentary. At the present, we have no agreement with Maoists on the issue of pluralism. Since the prime minister is elected by the majority in the parliament, s/he will be accountable to the parliament and there will be no risk of becoming a dictator. We can improve on it; for example, the provision of not bringing vote of no-confidence against the prime minister for one year.
In the presidential system, the role of political parties becomes weak. The weak of role parties will mean the end of multiparty system. Therefore, if multiparty system, which is the base of pluralism, is not adopted, then democracy will also end. Therefore, in our context, a directly elected executive presidential system is not appropriate.
Which is appropriate for the central parliament, unicameral or bicameral? Why?
We should not make a unicameral parliament in the centre. When we are going to federal system, then bicameral parliament is imperative and necessary. Directly elected (first past the post and proportional representation) lower house and an upper house of representatives from the states should be formed, which will ensure the voice of the states is heard in the upper house more and this helps strengthen the federal system.
There has been no agreement even on the election system in the CA. What are you views on this?
Mixed system (as in the CA election) is appropriate. However, the number of directly elected seats should be increased and the proportional representation seats should be reduced. And if possible, the lower house should be directly elected and upper should be through proportional representation.
There did not seem to be much difference opinion on the judicial system of the Federal Democratic Nepal. What should it be?
We cannot make Supreme Courts in all the states. In a country like Nepal, there is the Supreme Court and High Courts in the states; there is a common High Court between two states in some cases. If we insist on a Supreme Court, Civil Service Commission, and others in every state, the state will not be able to bear the expenses, and it will have to look to the centre. This will affect development works.
There is the issue of independence of the judiciary.
The judiciary cannot survive without being independent. There should be independent judiciary.
There is also the issue of the constitutional court?
Yes, the Taskforce has already accepted this. We cannot say where this will end after discussions in the CA. There should not be much problem the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is not constricted and the constitutional court is led by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. However, if we cannot maintain an independent Supreme Court and the parliament controls and instructs it, then democracy will also be over. There is the provision of impeaching a justice through a two-thirds majority; which is also good.
There is the talk of demarcating the states now. Is this an attempt to usurp the powers of the centre to boss around by the states?
Even my fellow members in the Committee on Natural Resources, Financial Rights and Revenue Sharing wanted to take the powers of the centre to the states but not to the local governments. It was disheartening to hear their talks of giving authority to the local governments on an ad-hoc basis. This seems to be in human nature to empower oneself but not delegating the same authority to the lower levels.
Then is it that the centre and local governments will diminish and the states will expand?
At the moment, listening to many people and following their proposals might lead to such a situation, but there should not be like that. Therefore, the Committee has studied the experience and systems in place in federal countries and finalised the authorities to be retained by the centre, by the states, and the local government, and joint authority between centre-states, and states-local governments. At the moment, the CA members are representing the states and the centre in a way. There is no representation from the village. Therefore, there is some conflict while talking about rights sharing between the centre and the states. However, importance has not been paid to the local governments, which are the real bases of democracy. There should not be like this. This has arisen because the CA members are a worried about where their election constituencies will fall.
What is the relation between federalism and the right to self-determination?
First, the right to self-determination should be defined. If it means the works of the states including development works, then everybody will accept it. However, self-determination should not be defined vaguely. Does it mean the right to secede? As far as I know, no constitution in the world mentions the right to secede. Also, states should not be given any rights that might affect another state. It is important to be clear on the rights to self-determination of the states and the local government.
Right of self-determination is said to be the rights over the natural resources of a particular ethnic group in a state or local level. Suppose Tamakoshi demarcates two states. Now when we build a hydroelectric project in the Tamakoshi, talks of rights to self-determination will not suffice. The centre should have oversight over it. The centre should talk with both the states including affected village development committees. It is easy to say that the local community has preferential rights over water, land, and forest, but if we look at drinking water projects in the hills there are examples of water being transported from one village development committee to another or one ward to another. If my ward refuses through passage of drinking water, about 2000 people will be deprived of water. If we are not careful now, seeds of future conflict will have been sown.
Could you tell us about the revenue sharing between local federal units?
The Committee on Natural Resources, Financial Rights and Revenue Sharing has submitted a proposal regarding this, which calls for local level bodies which will provide benefits to the local people with ease. Why are states needed? For benefits. Why are regions needed? That is also for benefits. If the authority centred in Kathmandu now were to remain restricted to the states only, that would not solve any problems. Therefore, authority should not only be transferred to the states but also delegated to the local governments. The new local units should be able to provide necessary service to a citizen like citizenship, passport, birth and marriage records. It should have the authority to levy taxes on such services and to decide what portion should be sent to the centre. Some taxes will be directly collected by the centre, some by both the centre and the states, some by the states and local governments. Therefore, these issues should be clearly mentioned in the constitution. If it is not done and the authority of the centre is just transferred to the states only, then our envisioned federalism will not be successful. The people will not get services and they will oppose the constitution.
The issue of political preferential rights has also been highlighted lately?
In democracy, every citizen has the same voting rights. And there is no question of having unequal rights. If we cannot accept this, then we cannot meet our objectives. Also, who should be given preferential rights based on what? Political preferential rights cannot be given based on ethnic groups. Sherpas who migrated to Nepal 300 to 400 years ago are to be given preferential rights and Bahun/Chhetri who migrated to Nepal 1500 to 2000 years ago should not receive it? So what is its definition? What is the definition of indigenous population? What is the definition of ethnic groups? This will only raise discord between brothers. Therefore, preferential rights should be based on democratic value one person one vote.
By Dhruba Simkhada
Date of publication: June 18, 2011