Nearly six years ago, a resurgent and hopeful Nepal went to the polls to elect a constituent assembly that was supposed to draft a new constitution reflecting the aspirations of a country emerging from a decade-long bloody civil war.
In the last 15 years, a lot has happened in Nepal. Maoist guerrillas have challenged the writ of the state and the feudal power structures that controlled it; Nepal’s myriad ethno-linguistic groups have challenged the dominance of the upper-caste Pahadi Hindus and demanded a share in power; and the unitary state model has come under fire as voices for decentralisation and federalism grew rapidly.
The deadline that members of the assembly set for writing a new constitution is January 22, 2015, but there is no sign still of a political consensus emerging about how the state should be restructured. And in the process, Nepal’s economy is hurting.
After the war, four coalition governments and a caretaker one have come and gone, but Nepal has not been able to reinvent itself. The current government, led by the Nepali Congress, is the sixth one, and was elected in 2013.
Competitive politics
In 2008, a historic election, the first one after the civil war, went off peacefully as Nepalis came out in large numbers to vote, with some anxiety but a lot of hope. In a result that shocked established parties and Nepal watchers in India, the Maoists emerged as the largest party, winning 229 of 601 seats. Regional parties also did well, with parties representing Madhesis – Bhojpuri-, Mythili- and Awadhi-speaking people from the Terai plains of southern Nepal – cornering a sizeable number of seats and adding a twist to post-war politics.
Yet instead of heralding a new phase of rebuilding and reconciliation, the election unleashed petty, competitive politics. Almost all governments tried to consolidate power and keep the opposition out, rather than attempting to generate a consensus on how the state should be reshaped.
The only real change in terms of state restructuring was that the 300-year-old Shah monarchy has been abolished and the country has become a republic.
But even though the Kingdom of Nepal officially became the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal in May 2008, the various political forces cannot still agree on how this change in nomenclature will find concrete expression.
Ethnic federalism
Contrary to perceptions in some quarters in India, Nepal is a country of great linguistic and ethnic diversity. But upper-caste Hindu Pahadis, who constitute 30% of the population, have historically dominated the country’s government, bureaucracy and economy, causing a lot of resentment among other communities, such the Madhesis, hill Janjatis and Tharus. These communities make up over 60% of the population but did not benefit much from a heavily centralised unitary state controlled from Kathmandu.
During the civil war, when Maoist insurgents tried to overthrow the Nepali government they successfully recruited fighters from non-Pahadi communities with the promise of devolving power to them. This was also in some ways the start of the federalism movement in post-war Nepal, in which non-Pahadi groups sought inclusion through ethnic federalism. However, this has not turned out to be easy.
After active fighting ended in early 2006 and a turbulent peace process was under way, groups demanding federalism began to suspect that established political forces, including Maoists, had abandoned federalism, and took to the streets. In January 2007, the Madhesi community, among the most excluded groups, demonstrated in Terai, demanding that federalism be made part of any final deal. The protests brought the Terai, the country’s lifeline, to a standstill, and eventually forced the interim prime minister, GP Koirala, to publically promise that all major political groups were committed to federalism.
Mounting hostilities
Since then the debate has taken many turns, making it one of the most divisive issues in Naya Nepal. Political parties and pressure groups representing the interests of Madheshi, Tharu and hill Janjati communities, along with the Maoist party, continue to push for ethnic federalism, which they believe will build a more inclusive Nepal.
But the old guard, including the Nepali Congress and the Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist, have been hostile towards this idea, instead pushing a model of federalism that prioritises administrative decentralisation over ethnic identities. No doubt, some contentious demands in the federalism debate have been resolved, such as the demand for agradhikar, or first rights to natural resources in areas in which they are in a majority, because this would have marginalised other communities. But if a consensus is not reached quickly, these agreements may have to be renegotiated.
The deadlock on federalism resulted in the first constituent assembly breaking up in 2012, with Nepal slipping into a protracted political limbo. To make matters worse, the Nepali Congress and the Communists, who emerged as the largest parties in the 2013 election that elected a new constituent assembly, have threatened to promulgate a constitution through a majority vote, which would further complicate matters.
Nepali legislators are fighting pitched battles inside the assembly, and there is a danger that the hostilities could spill over to the streets.
New Delhi-based Raghu Menon worked for the United Nations in Nepal.
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
In the last 15 years, a lot has happened in Nepal. Maoist guerrillas have challenged the writ of the state and the feudal power structures that controlled it; Nepal’s myriad ethno-linguistic groups have challenged the dominance of the upper-caste Pahadi Hindus and demanded a share in power; and the unitary state model has come under fire as voices for decentralisation and federalism grew rapidly.
The deadline that members of the assembly set for writing a new constitution is January 22, 2015, but there is no sign still of a political consensus emerging about how the state should be restructured. And in the process, Nepal’s economy is hurting.
After the war, four coalition governments and a caretaker one have come and gone, but Nepal has not been able to reinvent itself. The current government, led by the Nepali Congress, is the sixth one, and was elected in 2013.
Competitive politics
In 2008, a historic election, the first one after the civil war, went off peacefully as Nepalis came out in large numbers to vote, with some anxiety but a lot of hope. In a result that shocked established parties and Nepal watchers in India, the Maoists emerged as the largest party, winning 229 of 601 seats. Regional parties also did well, with parties representing Madhesis – Bhojpuri-, Mythili- and Awadhi-speaking people from the Terai plains of southern Nepal – cornering a sizeable number of seats and adding a twist to post-war politics.
Yet instead of heralding a new phase of rebuilding and reconciliation, the election unleashed petty, competitive politics. Almost all governments tried to consolidate power and keep the opposition out, rather than attempting to generate a consensus on how the state should be reshaped.
The only real change in terms of state restructuring was that the 300-year-old Shah monarchy has been abolished and the country has become a republic.
But even though the Kingdom of Nepal officially became the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal in May 2008, the various political forces cannot still agree on how this change in nomenclature will find concrete expression.
Ethnic federalism
Contrary to perceptions in some quarters in India, Nepal is a country of great linguistic and ethnic diversity. But upper-caste Hindu Pahadis, who constitute 30% of the population, have historically dominated the country’s government, bureaucracy and economy, causing a lot of resentment among other communities, such the Madhesis, hill Janjatis and Tharus. These communities make up over 60% of the population but did not benefit much from a heavily centralised unitary state controlled from Kathmandu.
During the civil war, when Maoist insurgents tried to overthrow the Nepali government they successfully recruited fighters from non-Pahadi communities with the promise of devolving power to them. This was also in some ways the start of the federalism movement in post-war Nepal, in which non-Pahadi groups sought inclusion through ethnic federalism. However, this has not turned out to be easy.
After active fighting ended in early 2006 and a turbulent peace process was under way, groups demanding federalism began to suspect that established political forces, including Maoists, had abandoned federalism, and took to the streets. In January 2007, the Madhesi community, among the most excluded groups, demonstrated in Terai, demanding that federalism be made part of any final deal. The protests brought the Terai, the country’s lifeline, to a standstill, and eventually forced the interim prime minister, GP Koirala, to publically promise that all major political groups were committed to federalism.
Mounting hostilities
Since then the debate has taken many turns, making it one of the most divisive issues in Naya Nepal. Political parties and pressure groups representing the interests of Madheshi, Tharu and hill Janjati communities, along with the Maoist party, continue to push for ethnic federalism, which they believe will build a more inclusive Nepal.
But the old guard, including the Nepali Congress and the Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist, have been hostile towards this idea, instead pushing a model of federalism that prioritises administrative decentralisation over ethnic identities. No doubt, some contentious demands in the federalism debate have been resolved, such as the demand for agradhikar, or first rights to natural resources in areas in which they are in a majority, because this would have marginalised other communities. But if a consensus is not reached quickly, these agreements may have to be renegotiated.
The deadlock on federalism resulted in the first constituent assembly breaking up in 2012, with Nepal slipping into a protracted political limbo. To make matters worse, the Nepali Congress and the Communists, who emerged as the largest parties in the 2013 election that elected a new constituent assembly, have threatened to promulgate a constitution through a majority vote, which would further complicate matters.
Nepali legislators are fighting pitched battles inside the assembly, and there is a danger that the hostilities could spill over to the streets.
New Delhi-based Raghu Menon worked for the United Nations in Nepal.