When I see an article like this one by Alok Bohara or Shiva Gautam or any of these other folks, my first thought is, when will these Pahadi Bahuns in Kathmandu start publishing my articles? When they finally do, it will be a major coming of age on their part.
I am already looking into stop trying and instead focus on the three FM stations and the three daily newspapers published by Madhesis in Janakpur. The concept of a Madhesh state is the Madhesi Movement's gift to me.
Madhesi Aawaz
It is so obvious to me that in this article Alok Bohara subscribes to the Mahendrapath Rashtrabad, the false nationalism constructed by the dictator king Mahendra that necessarily oppressed all those who did not speak Nepali, did not wear Daura Suruwal, were not Hindu, did not worship the king.
The final shape of the federalism in Nepal will be made by the people themselves, through the democratic process, the electoral process. We Madhesis intend to create the Madhesh state through the ballot box.
So if I believe in the democratic process, in free speech, as I do, I am not going to argue against Alok Bohara's right to make his case. What I find amazing is how could he be misreading the groundswell of the Madhesi Movement? Forget the same room, he is not even in the same building, he is not even in the neighborhood.
The support for a Madhesh state in the Madhesh is so intense, any political party that does not go into these constituent assembly elections with a clear agenda for a federal republic and a Madhesh state is going to be wiped out of the Madhesh, be it the Koirala Congress, the Deuba Congress, the UML, the Maoists or any of the other outfits.
And Alok Bohara apparently does not see that. What are the barometers he uses? Or does he see through the thick, dark glass of the Pahadis in general? He is apparently not seeing.
If he believes in the democratic process, as he says he does, he is not going to argue against the Madhesi people's democratic right to get their own state in a federal Nepal through the ballot box.
This is about democracy.
The race is not even going to be close. It is going to be a slam dunk for a Madhesh state.
I feel sorry for Bohara that he does not see the tsunami that is on its way. Can you see the waves in the distance? It is the Madhesi Movement that will settle for nothing less than total equality.
Alok Bohara seems to belong to a school of thought that equates federalism with disintegration. There is this ridiculous example of the need for North-South highways. Well, such highways will be the jurisdiction of the federal government, and not the states! As will all the big hydel projects.
People just need to get over it. It is best if the Pahadis just go ahead and make peace with the idea of a Madhesh state right away.
On Regional Autonomy And New Nepal
By Alok K Bohara
How would the age-old Nepali problems such as the caste and gender discrimination, economic deprivation, famine and food security in the western hills, poor governance, healthcare deficits, ecological degradation, urban crimes, population pressures, joblessness, education gaps, inability to cope with the natural disasters like flooding in terai, child labor, girl-trafficking and the feudal hierarchy and rigidities be solved by dividing Nepal along the ethnic line? These are not the Madhesi or the Limbuwan or the Bahun problems. These are the Nepali problems.While thinking about these issues, I could not help sharing the following experience in a more microcosm scale that may contain some lessons for all of us.
I recently attended a parent teacher convention from our school district to watch and observe the following debate. Many households from the wealthy and white neighborhood area of our district wanted to secede from the existing district to join another adjoining district in the north. The southern area of the district, mostly poor and minority Hispanics, did not want to lose the rich and stable tax base and the parental value system that the Whites represented. The high school in this district was in bad shape and had a 40/60 ratio between the two ethnic groups -Whites and Hispanics. After several days of grueling debates, the decision was made to work together and fix the school problem collectively.
At a larger scale, the states of Wyoming, Colorado, and Texas have been in litigation over the sharing of the water resources from a river that runs through these states. A similar dispute in India has gone to the Supreme Court too. Once you combine the ethnicity issue with the resource scarcity and allocation problem, we will have a much bigger problem in our hands. Darfur is an example, and it is also quite evident in Iraq. The oil rich regions of the Kurds in the North and the Shiites in the South have left the Sunnis in the middle feeling quite vulnerable, and it has compounded the conflict. The invasion and the continued presence of the American force have not helped the matter. These comparisons are drawn only for an illustrative purpose. Now, it begs the question for us and the Nepali restructuring effort.
Wakeup call: Genuine emotions coming out of the terai belt were indeed powerful enough that it did not require battalions of armed rebels and guerrilla warfare to shake the consciousness of the established Pahadi leadership. The population based representation is the bedrock of any democracy, and granting this right by the Pahade establishment to the Madhesis was long overdue. Once we have decided the number of allocated seats from the region based on the population, the second issue is about how to elect them. This is where the pure proportional representation (PR) or the mixed PR or the existing single constituency winner-take-all debate comes into play. There is much confusion about this in the media.
Speaking of the population-based electoral allocations, for example, it only makes sense to let populated California send more than 40 congressional representatives, whereas a sparsely populated New Mexico gets only 5 or so seats. But, the election mechanism itself is the first-past-the-post method (like in India, the United Kingdom and Nepal) and not the (mixed) PR system as practiced in numerous European countries and the countries like Mexico, Japan, the Philippines, New Zealand, East Timor, and South Africa.
It is also worth noting that the upper house of the US legislative branch (the Senate) acts as a check and balance system to counter the potential abuse by the majority over the minority. That is, each state is also allowed to send 2 senators to the upper chamber regardless of the population. The point of this argument is not about mimicking this system for Nepal, but only to argue that whatever we decide collectively should have enough checks and balances, and should be able to withstand the test of time.
To that end, this author does not see a sound logic in creating a new Nepal along the line of ethnic division, whether it is a Limbuwan state, or Madhesi state, or Newari state or Bahun state. My proposed solution, no matter how politically incorrect it is, is to stick with a system that encompasses Himal, Hills, and terai belts within each of the federal states, and then allowing each of the state to carve out their constituencies based on their population and ethnic compositions.
Whatever institutional setup will be adopted, it should enforce a sense of Nepalipan in all of us to be followed by our own individual cultural and ethnic identities. The Indian concept of a strong nation state, democratic vibrancy, and its balancing central apparatus should be our model, and should avoid the unruly tribal warlordism of Afghanistan. A weak central government, the feeble rule of law, the ethnically fragmented federal states and the unhappy roaming rebel bands will not necessarily produce desirable results for Nepal.
Thus urgency need not be overshadowed by hasty prescriptions. I am from terai myself, and the neglect that this region has faced for centuries is real and sad. But, there is even greater responsibility on our shoulders to do things that are fair and transparent, and have long lasting qualities.
Electoral reforms and stability measures: I have always argued that the solution to Nepali problem needs to be comprehensive that should include a constitutional clarity about the division of tasks between the center and the regional states. I have always argued that the current first-past-the post electoral system rewards larger parties and drowns out the political and ethnic minority voices. Numerous countries around the world have adopted some form of the proportional system, and Nepal should do the same. This is the compromise our large parties must make to the smaller and diverse voices, and the move towards that is a welcome sign.
But, the PR system by itself is not a magic bullet, and there is a real chance that the country will begin to see coalition governments as a rule rather than an exception. This generally leads to instability. For example, it took New Zealand five months to form its government after it replaced the first-past-the post system (currently practiced in Nepal, India, and the United States) with the 50/50 mixed proportional system. However, there are some safety valves that can be installed to prevent such political volatilities. First, the party vote electoral shares must be based on some minimum voting percentage (e.g. 5%). Under this system, a party must have at least 5% national vote to claim any share of the parliamentary seats. The Israel system has a restriction like this. Similarly, a mixed instead of a pure proportional representation system may be more appropriate to avoid too much party fragmentation.
In order to avoid frequent changes in governments that are more likely under the PR system, the parliament may adopt a "constructive vote of no-confidence" system. Under this system as in Germany, the opposition party is required to present a slate of the incoming government before filing for a vote of no-confidence. This system discourages the opposition from attempting to table frivolous no-confidence bills. A free-for-all pure PR system will encourage horse trading and fragile coalitions.
Regional autonomy: Now returning to the issue of regional autonomy, my argument is as follows. I have written much about this issue and so I will be brief. (A long-version of the paper is available upon request.) Separating Mountains and Hills from terai to create a federal state will not add much to the solution that we are actually looking for. Instead, having a regional setup with all three belts as a part of a federal state could be more pragmatic. The heavily populated terai, with its increased electoral voting representation, will have a proper representation of the terai-basis within a federated state or to the national legislative branch. Additionally, it could also provide leadership to other ethnic minorities within the state through a shared sense of responsibility.
The northern mountains and its tourism potential, and the hills with the potential of cash crops, mining and hydro-water and dam related resources can add to the fertile terai belt's industrial and agriculture activities. Together, they all can serve the people of the region through a collective tax base. They can also avoid the potential dispute over the exploitation of water resources from the rivers that will continue to flow from north to south. Instead, they can harness the rivers for the betterment of the region as a whole. I would also argue for a 50/50 revenue sharing mechanism between the state and the center from the hydro resources, which will give more fiscal assets and clout to a federal state. The north south Trans-Himalayan highway system joining India and China can be managed collectively and more efficiently under one north-south regional federated system.
Importantly, avoiding unintended consequences should also be considered while debating the restructuring issues. I write this as a Nepali who likes to see a united Nepal which is inclusive, progressive, just and democratically vibrant and is a home to everyone regardless of their cultural heritage, gender, caste, color or creed. The ethnic division of the country, to me, has much risk attached to it. We must look for some alternatives, and what I have proposed is one of them.
(The writer is Professor of Economics at the University of New Mexico)
bohara@unm.ed
Posted on: 2007-02-11 21:06:42 (Server Time)
