User:Intellectuality of youth

FORMALISM V PRAGMATISM: FEDERAL STRUCTURE OF NEPAL

The word federalism is derived from the word, foedus means treaty of agreement. Treaty of agreement signifies the compulsion of federal state towards their committeemen’s. Federalism is developed against the centreicism concept of power and resources. Unitary form of government is opposite to the federal form of government. Self voluntarism and Constructionsim is two sect of federalism. Self voluntarism signifies that the different independent state self voluntary without any compulsion comes together with agreement for the construction of contederation. It is also called coming together federalism. In this mode of federalism all the state has independent recognition and existence, and also they have right to secession. The countries which have follow this mode of federalism due to many purposes like for the protection, economic benefit; recognition in the world etc. in the later form of federalism signifies the division of one single state into many several provinces and states. Theses modes of federalism don’t include the right to self determination with secession. Because no one state is colony of anyone and having independent existence in the past. So in this concept, internal self determination only prevails. In the former model of federalism all the state has the de facto power while in latter all this state has the dejure power( constitution clearly mention about the rights, duties, responsibility, jurisdiction of the provinces, supremacy of constitution). Federalism in Nepal has developed to give the pragmatic answer of the specific questions. Federalism in Nepal has emerged as major demand of ethnic and regional activists which had suffered injustice from the long time ago. The debate about federalism was developed previsiously for the different subject’s matters but now a day is changed their shape and debate is extremely politicized. Federalism is not simply the decentralization of political power; it has become a powerful symbol for a wider agenda of inclusion, which encompasses other institutional reforms to guarantee ethnic proportional representation and redefinition of Nepali nationalism to recognize the country’s ethnic and cultural diversity. The group which had excluded from the state mechanism; they will have enough chance in the federal state. Federalism and proportional representation offer significant opportunity to unravel entrenched patterns of discrimination on the basis of caste, ethnicity, and regional identity. Due to ethnic clash of ethnic groups, the separate politics has started to come in the nations called ethnic based politics. Ethnic based demand for the federal structure is based example of ethnic politics. There are three broad responses critical of current change like unitary to federal. A leftist, secular and pro-republican position perceives identity politics as reactionary and federalism as risk to Nepal’s national unity. The introduction of federalism in Nepal has two basic reasons. In the one hand federalism is advocated to help end marginalization of disadvantages groups and regions by improving self rule and representation (shared rule). Maoists are in favor of federalism in order to bring an end the marginalization. On the other hand federalism is advocated to promote democratization and foster development for all throughout the country through direct participation. More participation of local people in the government an development activists provides strong ground to flourish the democratic spirit and norm and this is possible in Nepal only when the federal structure has would created in Nepal because long form of centralized government has already given lesson to Nepalese people. Still certain parties which are closely link with the royal palace are arguing federalism can destroy unity of Nepalese people. They are opposing the demand of federalism. What sorts of unity are they talking are not clear? If they really want o make strong unity among Nepalese people then what they had done in 240 years of Monarchy. They again want to exploit the Nepalese people. The basis of federalism in Nepal is not clear. Different political parties are presenting their ideas without linking and thinking about whether particular basis id feasible or not. The federalism in Nepal is arising just like the ideological flavor. No one party is presenting their views regarding federal structure with pragmatic solution. Federalism is not itself the solution but it is the way for the solution. The base argued by the political parties doesn’t seem any relevance to existence problem of Nepal. Among 200 nations of the world more than 26 countries has follow the federal structure. The countries which have federal structure have not followed the single basis. So within the one country, there may be several bases. The countries which had divided their federal structure only on the one basis failed to exist like Sudan, Ethiopia, Belgium, and Spain. Nowadays Nigeria is going to change itself unitary from the federal one. The basis of federalism in Nepal should be accordance with the land of Nepal not with the others. The basis should never copy form the other states. In Nepal, who are opposing ethnic base federal structure are arguing that this basis will ultimately invite civil war in the country which seems pragmatic. Because Nepal has more than 105 ethnic groups and no one ethnic group has absolute majority in ethic purposed federal structure. One group has to live under the others provinces and there is maximum possibility of exploitation. Problem will not solve rather it make more complex. So another basis for federal structure should search. The all ethnic groups are living from North to South and east to West. The people who are supporting ethnic base federal structure can argue that 75% of Nepalese people has lost their identity so by creating ethnic based federal structure will bring harmony but they are ignoring the fact that where they will form state like “ Kusunda” having 164 no of population and “ Kusbadia” having 552 number of population according to 2058 census. The debate about federalism and pragmatism in the field of Jurisprudence to provide the answer to the specific questions is the debate of Imperative school of thought and Functional school of thought. It is the debate of 18th century jurists of Analytical school and 19th century jurists of Pragmatist school of thought. There is common question for both the school like “is there anything beyond the letter which has mentioned in the books?’’. Formalistic school strongly says, “NO” while pragmatist says, “YES”. So it can be said that it is debate of YES and NO for the particular issues. If we apply this conception in federalism in Nepal, we can say that Nepalese political parties are more formalistic than the pragmatist. There should be mixing up word and action while taking about federalism .The many countries are facing still problems because they has adopt the federal structure and which we are going to adopt. All the pros and cons and also strong foundation for federalism should discuss well with pragmatic way. We have to understand that federalism never solves the problems but it make more complex. The huge diversity of Nepal will integrate under federal structure or not, what the future will be of federal structure, what are the contextual bases for federal structure in Nepal like dozen of questions shall have to solve. There is much excellent and beautiful word in relation of federalism under the manifesto of political parties but whether they can implement or not is another question. Only incorporation of such word doesn’t show any importance. We have to see minor to minor problem in relation of federalism. Even, the countries which haven’t adopted the federal structure are more developed than the one who had adopted the federal structure. So adopting federal structure is not that much great work but making it more durability is key concerns. Hence, federalism in Nepal must be debate of formalism and pragmatism rather than the political spirit.