Nepal: On this Edition of Federalism Feud…

I feel fairly naïve having not realized to what degree issues of federalism extended past U.S. (or rather, the 50 state’s) borders. But in Kathmandu, as tourists gripe about how the plight of ethnic minorities interferes with their trekking plans, the morning paper expounds on these contentious questions and bhandas (strikes and demonstrations), effectively immobilize thousands.

In the last five years, Nepal seems to have been on Mr. Toad’s Wild Political Ride. Nepal’s Monarchy gave way to a period of martial law after the Maoist insurgency, which was then declared a federal republic in 2008. However, the Constitution that comes with such a government has yet to materialize. Now, Nepal’s multiples parties, including the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist), and Nepal Congress, are eager to decide the country’s fate.

On May 27th, the new Constitution is due and the main issue lies in how to divide the country into provinces that suit all parties. When I arrived, Parliament was debating not only on the needed quantity of districts in Nepal but also on whether such a division should be based on regional characteristics, economic viability, or ethnic identity. Like many compromises, this decision comes at a price. A recently agreed upon 11-state model leaves many angry. Some claim that the Madhesi, Muslim, and Sheik populations in Nepal would be left marginalized and without a political voice, thus some say defeating the purpose of the federalist model.

This debate hits a personal note. My previous summer was spent in part discussing the issues surrounding restructuring voting districts in Alaska and meeting federal requirements intended to ensure that First Nations Peoples are adequately represented by the electoral process. Here, to see the structuring of a Constitution that may or may not give this opportunity to ethnic communities in Nepal makes me wonder about how proactive or reactive this process should be. And, when it comes to structuring the country, I can’t help but wonder about the elasticity of federalism. If states are configured to represent those that inhabit them, should this representation be centered on ethnicity, economic security, or something else? And, as priorities and sometimes the population itself changes, does the representation evolve with it?

To read more articles about the political situation in Nepal, please see The Himalayan Times.
http://thehimalayantimes.com/fullTodays.php?headline=Debate+on+federalism%26sbquo%3B+forms+of+governance+rages+on&NewsID=332455