“The Art Of Leadership Is The Art Of Compromise”
Peter Russell
Professor PETER H. RUSSELL, who has been teaching political science in University of Toronto, Canada, is a well known scholar on federalism. Professor Russell was in town recently to address a program on The Justice System and The Constitution organized by UNDP Constitution Advisory Unit in collaboration with Canadian Bar Association-Nepal Bar Association and International Commission of Jurist. Russell spoke to KESHAB POUDEL on various issues. Excerpts:
After experimenting five constitutions in the past, Nepal is once again in the process of constitution making through the elections of Constituent Assembly. Do you believe that the constitution made by CA will last longer?
It is a big challenge but a challenge that only a brave and democratic people will take up. It is, of course, not easy way but you have tried to be other way. You have experiences now that will show if a constitution is going to really have a popular base and people are going to feel ownership of it. Particularly, your country is going to be very important moving from monarchy to republic. These are the two words I know. Underneath, a way beyond those two words are deep feelings that go back to family, generations in the last fifty years. It has really been the central issue. Most people in Nepal agree about multi-party system like all democratic people. The top issue has been ballot and the vote to decide it. They are about to decide it and they also know about the diversity of the people who have not been participating in the political life of democratic Nepal.
How would you bring consensus?
This is another challenge in bringing them in and getting a popular root for republican constitution doing it with a consensus but you cannot have unanimity. There will always be some people who disagree. Some disagree passionately. But they are always relatively small minorities. I don't dismiss their views as foolish as they will have well argued positions for rejecting the majority. If you can get a consensus, it is alright but you
need to have fairly a broad majority. It will be a huge achievement.
Despite declaring independence, Canada still retains British Queen as a head of the state. Why doesn't your country declare republic like Nepal?
It is for a very good reason. Our experience with monarchy is very different than your experiences. Rather than being opponent of democracy in the last century and half going back to the middle of the 1800s, our monarchs and their representative governor general have been supporter of constitutional democracy. They show that they have accepted their role basically as a ceremonial. In other words, we have very good experience. Our
governor generals who represent the queen of United Kingdom have done a job well. They are highly democratic people and they believe in democracy. So, democratic people have had no difficulty in continuation of monarchy. That seems not to be a case here.
Do you mean removing monarchy and establishing republic will guarantee absolute functional democracy in a country like Nepal?
Oh! no. It is the real truth that the most stable democracies in the world so far have been in monarchies All the Scandinavian, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, former fascist country Spain have most stable democracy along with all of the commonwealth including New Zealand, Australia and Canada. All these countries are very strong monarchical democracies. Republican democracy has a very mixed record particular with the country with no parliament and those with both elected president and parliament. Besides the elected president, there is an elected congress or legislature. They have not done very well and they have been quite unstable except the United States. So, becoming republic does not guarantee democracy. What I can judge from meeting you people, talking to them and reading your history in the books, your monarchy is still too strong, which our monarchy has lost a long ago.
Sandwiched between Asia's two big powers India and China with heterogeneous ethnic groups, diverse culture and geography, people have been saying that federalism is the panacea to all problems here. How do you look at it?
Federalism is a word with many variations and practices. There is a federal movement in the whole world right now. You can see it everywhere. Certainly, it is not only happening in the European Union, the countries within the union including United Kingdom where issue of Scottish devolution is being raised and so on. And the reason for that is the respect for minority culture. There is a realization that a nation does not have to be based on single culture to be strong and unified body. Once you make that decision you can respect the minority culture and remain strong and unified. Of course, you have a strong national government and you also have some forms of self government locally.
What way do you prefer?
How will you do in Nepal is a different matter. Say in the United States, with its 50
states united not based on culture, not based on language or religion. There may be a little more like a Swiss or little more like a Canada, which has a mixture. We have a province which is set aside for French Canadians. Fifty-six aboriginal nations, they have been enjoying a kind of self governance. We have a very complex federal structure. Diversity is our strength if you recognize them. You mustn't use force. It must be settled through goodwill and negotiations. I believe in it. If you try to impose by force, then there will be trouble. It is very easy to say that we have one country and one government.
In a country with a very weak judiciary, weak parliament and other institutions, what does Nepal need to do?
The most important thing is really getting better people committed to their political career. In each developing country, I have been watching for nearly fifty years, the first thing the educated people get their degree in laws, medicines and whatever, they will go to make money in other professions because politics is really a tough area. In politics, you need to risk everything. If you lose the election, you will lose the money, break the family. You need strong participation of your best people in the political life of the country. There is no substitute for that. It is has to come from political leadership. If you go to your history, your seven or eight political parties failed managing your country. There is a tyranny of small differences. The art of leadership is the art of compromise. Political leaders must have ability to say I don't agree with that person but my disagreement is not that important. If you don't have this kind of culture, you won't be successful.
How important is the independent judiciary for democracy?
It is crucial to have an independent judiciary. A federal country has to make a choice how it is going to have a strong judiciary or federalism. The Americans may be one choice - that's one model in which they say they have two judiciary- the states have their own courts, lower courts, appeal courts etc or a central court like Supreme Court of the United States for very important national matters. That is an expensive system and it is also potentially divisive. The one way it has been able to maintain unity in justice is the Supreme Court of USA having a very strong mandate to enforce the
American constitution in all the states and judges of the state. That took a couple of hundred years and in the middle there was a civil war. It has been doing that only from early 20th century. US Supreme Court is unifying the American justice system. They had strong and brilliant judges who delivered.
How about other models?
Other models are the Canadian and Indian. There is the one basic central court in the country. That's good and that gives you a national judiciary. In Canada, a federal process of appointment of judges to the national judiciary is controlled politically in the national capital by politicians. Governments were able to share in the appointment in national judges and the appointment of judges is dominated by national politicians. The unitary judiciary model is better one for Nepal but make sure that the provinces or self governing people whatever they are called have some say how judges are appointed.
Just as Canada shares the border with World's only super power United States, Nepal shares border with Asia's two powers India and China, how do you see the possibility to evolve stable, functional democratic federal system here?
Of course, Canada shares her border with one super power but you got two of Asia's super powers India and China - this is itself a very complex issue. Well. I don't know your country well enough but I do have some knowledge about your two super big powers. Of the two, I have spent much of my time in China than in India. Let's start from China. China has not done well about their diversity. They have not done at all for what they call national minorities. Of course, their GNP is large and strong economy at superfluous level is growing. They got the seeds of very fundamental of civil conflicts.
Similarly, you have many messes in India as it is much more difficult to govern India than China. Though India has made some efforts to treat their minorities fairly, there also exist fundamental seeds of conflicts.
Can Nepal manage federal structure?
I don't know how you will organize a federal structure in Nepal. One model you can have is lets say you have tribal ethnic people who have their own cultures and languages, laws and practices. You can certainly provide for special provision which the Americans have done. We have also done special provision for tribal people like Eskimo Indians.
What are other alternatives for accommodating diverse groups?
What should you try to do is to help them participate in national government, perhaps in a second chamber. They should be given participation in second chamber which controls overall national laws.
Do you think it is possible for Nepal to have full governments at the state/provincial level?
I don't see that for Nepal. It is so expensive to have full governments at the state or the provincial levels with all the bureaucracies and so on. It takes a lot of money. I have been to Russia quite a lot of time in the last few years. They have 89 units and all of them run under Moscow or under Putin. It's a fake federalism. I think there are different models with local autonomy.
