State (a)politics attack on federalism

Koshi state has seen five governments in fifteen months and is on the brink of another change. As a result, at least three governments have changed in every province in fifteen months. Every time the equation of power politics changes in the union, its effect is electric on the existence of the state government. The first victim of this fate has been the federalism of Nepal. And, this is the biggest reason for discrediting the provincial unit under federalism.

In general, eight and a half years of the constitution may not be considered long in the theoretical view of the eternal existence of the country. Even if we can proceed smoothly in an overall positive and creative way, it is natural that one-and-a-half decades after the implementation of each new government system will take for the development of the legal and institutional structures needed to make it fully operational. In this sense, it is not unusual for Nepal's federal government system to remain weak. However, this eight and a half years is not a short time to assess whether the political system adopted by the country has progressed according to the letter and spirit of the constitution and the people's expectations or not. For citizens who are eager to see the progress of themselves and the country in their own lifetime, this period is very long.

The concern is that the constitution adopted by Nepal as the most democratic and inclusive in the world and the federal state system it has institutionalized have not moved forward in the hopeful direction of becoming relatively fully functional. The suspicion that the country will fall into the instability of another political trial before its foundation is strengthened is rapidly intensifying. Its ideological opponents are criticizing that federalism has left the state's wealth, the services provided to the people have not increased, mainly the provincial structure has become burdensome and ineffective, and the entire federal system of governance has not been 'fit for the soil'. The right-wing and traditional unitary state advocates, who consider the implementation of the federal constitution as the cause of their political defeat and downfall, can be understood as the reason why they are trying to eradicate federalism in this way.

It is the responsibility of political parties and their abbots, the players of the current power politics, to extinguish these predictable retaliatory criticisms and attacks and to prove the federal system as a "historic" achievement by advanced political behavior and exemplary results. The federal system can be institutionalized, sustainable and provide public service only when the leaders and aspirants themselves can become an essential example of the sense of political responsibility towards the country, the spirit of federalism and the behavior according to the spirit and refined democratic political culture.

The real threat to the federal system now comes from those who prefer not to be called its supporters, but indulge in non-federal, uncivilized and undemocratic politics for petty interests rather than its natural opponents. In particular, the party of decisive status and its handful of decisive leaders have essentially refused to assimilate and practice the concept of political federalism. For this reason, the other three pillars of the federal constitutional structure – constitutional federalism, administrative federalism and financial federalism have also failed to produce results.

Provincial structure in federalism

Serious political corruption is hidden in the surface layer of criticism that the (additional) system of provincial government has increased the economic burden on the country and has not contributed to the governance system, which is often promoted by those who wish to complete federalism. The original form or identity of the federal state structure of Nepal was (only) made possible by the creation of provincial legislatures and executive bodies. The existence, practice and experience of two levels of government, central and local, in one way or another, the country had been doing for six to seven decades. Therefore, as advocated by some powers, the provincial government and the political and administrative units at that level, as soon as they are removed from the federal framework, the terminological

(nomenclature) and rationale (rational) of the entire federalism is automatically defeated. Therefore, provincial politics should not be driven by the intention of exploiting this political imperative of defending federalism. It is not in vain to expect the provincial government and legislature to be ineffective and ineffective as they are now. This trend cannot contribute to strengthening federalism. It is not impossible to point the finger at the fact that the power politics of the Sangh has become more dirty and unstable. But it is more important to establish the justification of adopting federalism if the state government can establish a good governance and political good practice example than the federal government.

Conceptual basis of political federalism: Devolution of decision-making authority, division of power and the good intentions of all levels of the political organization to unconditionally follow the principles and values ​​of democracy from the country's political leadership. It is natural to do. Unfortunately, this is where the fatal blow to the country and the system has taken place.

The top leadership has not given both the right and the freedom to take necessary political decisions according to the situation there to the provincial level committees and units of their party. In the same way, the leadership of the state level is chosen not on the basis of their merit, character, sacrifice and leadership ability, but because they are chosen by personal favour, patronage and flattery, they cannot dare to bring such decision-making freedom into practice. Although the political parties have built the skeleton of their respective party's organizational structure parallel to the federal structure, they are not able to give them discretionary decision-making rights and autonomy. Actually, I don't want to. This is the reason why the state head or chief minister of any party is not able to take decisions about the issues and priorities within their jurisdiction as the mouthpiece of the central leadership. They are proving to be incompetent to make decisions about the political equation at the provincial level.

This level of central dictatorship is rarely imposed in any country with a federal system of government, including India. The central leadership should be able to demonstrate liberalism in line with federalism, allowing the provincial leadership to participate or withdraw from the political equation based on the priorities of political stability and development. This will certainly reduce political instability at the provincial level and prevent the federal system from failing. The provincial leadership should also be ready for that.

In federalism, there is a separation of power between the three main organs of the state - the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. The division of power between the federal, provincial and local governments is equally clear. Such an arrangement made by the Constitution of Nepal is not bad. But its practice has not been done in ideal quantity and style. There is no legal obligation for provincial parliamentary parties and organizations at that level to act on central orders and intentions. But they are not ready to practice freedom themselves. Federalism has to pay the price of this helplessness.

System: Democracy

Liberal democracy is both a means and an end for the development of federalism and autonomy at the sub-national level. It is a tool, because federalism is institutionalized through democratic methods and practices. Democracy is advanced and sustainable only after federalism is operational and institutionalized, so it is possible. Advanced democracy is and should be much broader than the arithmetical majority game played in parliament. Ideological ideals, the dignity of the system, folk manners, good intentions, the culture of respecting the good qualities of others and different opinions, public accountability, representation of people's sentiments, and political maneuvers for vested interests without being completely indifferent to any side, is not democracy.

The delicate balance of making or breaking a government with just one vote of a member of the state assembly has become the root of instability and unlimited politics. A vote of the Deepak Manang trend, which always keeps the existence of every government on the edge of the sword, has not raised an inch above the politics (of the union and especially of the province) which has led to a general distaste for federalism.

In order to hide their corruption and corruption, the top political leadership, who are called supporters of federalism, are indirectly advocating constitutional instability by placing all the blame for such instability on the mixed representation system responsible for creating a hung parliament. The real problem is the lack of democratic behavior and democratic political behavior. Changing the constitution or laws alone will not change the situation. The intention itself needs to be improved. The letters of the constitution cannot stop the distortion of power by party change and the collapse of the entire political party. Good political character is a prerequisite for that.

Two indispensable practices of democracy have been completely abolished. First, seeking a role only according to the mandate of the popular vote determined by the parliamentary arithmetic and needing a bigger share in power, both the patience and the tradition to wait for the new popular vote are zero. Second, internal democracy is equally lacking in all parties. Even in the old and big parties, there is no defined criteria as to what qualification and character should be elected to the legislature. The dominance of the powerful is decisive. The aspects of the ideological ground of the party and the character ideals of the party, which should be synthesized and refined from the Trinamool level, are out of the political debate. The competition to break the law is eternal than to follow the law. It is no wonder that federalism is in crisis after making democracy a 'secret ghee-drinking vinegar'. The experience of countries where federalism is paralyzed proves that.

When the politics of all the provinces across the country are continuously fluid like this, federalism is hit twice. As long as the provincial level leadership of the parties cannot demonstrate the position of not allowing the influence of political changes in the union to fall into provincial politics in an unwanted manner, federalism cannot become a carrier of good governance. Its impact goes much deeper than the surface entertainment of a series of political events. The provincial government is unable to exercise even partially the powers given by the constitution. As now, the institutional capacity required to exercise the rights given by the constitution cannot be developed at the provincial level. The constitutional vacuum thus created is gradually usurped by the centralized minded federal power and the non-federal players come to dance in this space.

Although we cannot expect a major improvement in political practice for the time being, it is necessary to put an end to the bad culture of the provincial government's equation automatically collapsing within a few hours after the change of government in the Union. The ruling elite and their superstitions must realize this as soon as possible, otherwise the future of federalism is not bright.