MIN RATNA BAJRACHARYA

With the super jumbo cabinet in place, the formation of the State Restructuring Commission (SRC), and the extension of the Constituent Assembly, we can finally get on with the real business of constitution making.

The eight member commission has a heavy responsibility in its hands: advising the government on the restructuring of the country that reflects the aspirations of the public. But how exactly do  the people want their country to be structured?

Five years ago, in the euphoria of change, we got rid of the old: including the 'royal' prefix on everything from the national airline to our embassies abroad. An ancient Hindu kingdom turned into the world's youngest secular federal republic, and an elected assembly couldn't wait to turn the country into a federation, convinced that this was what the Nepali people wanted. Most likely, the new constitution will also be written along the same lines. But time and again public surveys conducted by this newspaper among others showed a majority opposed ethnicity-based federalism. Even among various ethnic groups, three-fourths were against ethnic federalism and opposed to secularism. (See: Nepali Times, # 553) 

These numbers are, however, drowned out in the din of political slogans that dominates the debate on state restructuring in the constitution. A cross party caucus has made ethnic federalism its main plank, and the political parties meekly follow. The discourse on federalism is so polarised that to even remotely suggest that ethnic states may not be the most desirable thing for Nepal at the present time can earn one a label of being a regressive, status quoist right winger. Few mainstream writers or civil society stalwarts want to endanger their 'liberal' image by even seeming to suggest this. Or perhaps it is just futile to expect anything from consultant intellectuals who get support from aid agencies openly involved in pushing their agenda.

There is no doubt that the ethnic minorities in this country have been historically excluded, that the state for many years favoured policies that obstructed their development, in many cases effectively prevented it, and that they should be given equal rights and opportunities. But what is the solution we are being offered in the name of ethnic states will bring new exclusivities, another kind of supremacy and an irreversible damage to an integrated Nepali society.

Two wrongs do not make a right. Pitting one group against another in a resource poor society is a sure fire way to ignite a multi-ethnic conflict from which there will be no going back. The leaders unfortunately have been so trapped under the weight of their own rhetoric in trying to sound more revolutionary than the rest that now they can't go back.

In private, most leaders confess that they have bitten off more than they can chew. They fear that they have opened a Pandora's Box of caste-based politics, a fear which was confirmed when 75 members of an ethnic caucus voted across party lines on the amendment bill for state restructuring, disobeying the party whips. There is no assurance that the SRC will not succumb to similar pressures.

Where does this disconnect come from? The answer lies in the way change was introduced in Nepali society. No one is saying Nepal should remain a Hindu kingdom or continue with centralised governance, but you cannot expect people who have not really changed attitude-wise to wake up one fine morning hearing their country is now secular and federal and not be suspicious. That declaration should have been backed by wide public discussion and awareness-raising.  The problems of a nation are too complex, too diverse and too entrenched to be corrected by a few weeks of street uprising and fait accompli decision-making. A revolution may end a monarchy or dictatorship but emboldening values of democracy, freedom and pluralism are altogether a different issue.

What we need now is a nationwide discussion on how the governance of this country should be like, and what should be the basis of restructuring. Let the people debate and decide instead of being thrown off the deep end with imported ideas of how our country should be built. There will be dissenting voices, extreme opinions, run-down ideologies, but that is the marketplace of ideas called a democracy.

Read also:
Awesome chance

Corrupt at the roots, ANURAG ACHARYA
The all-party mechanism grabs headlines for all the wrong reasons