Wednesday, January 31, 2007

National

Mahendra Lawoti, Federalism and Conflict Management expert

Cross-national studies covering over 100 countries have shown that federalism minimizes violent conflicts whereas unitary structures are more apt to exacerbate ethnic conflicts. Frank S. Cohen (1997) analyzed ethnic conflicts and inter-governmental organizations over nine 5-year –periods (1945-1948 and 1985-1989) among 223 ethnic groups in 100 countries. He found that federalism generates increases in the incidence of protests (low-level ethnic conflicts) but stifles the development of rebellions (high-level conflicts). Increased access to institutional power provided by federalism leads to more low-level conflicts because local groups mobilize at the regional level to make demands on the regional governments. The perceptions that conflicts occur in federal structure is not entirely incorrect. But the conflicts are low-level and manageable ones. Often, these are desirable conflicts because they are expressions of disadvantaged groups and people for equality and justice, and part of a process that consolidates democracy. In addition, they also let off steam so that the protests do not turn into rebellions. As the demands at the regional levels are addressed, frustrations do not build up. It checks abrupt and severe outburst. That is why high levels of conflicts are found less in federal countries. On the other hand, Cohen found high levels of conflicts in unitary structures and centralized politics.

According to Cohen (1997:624):

Federalism moderates politics by expanding the opportunity for victory. The increase in opportunities for political gain comes from the fragmentation/dispersion of policy-making power… the compartmentalizing character of federalism also assures cultural distinctiveness by offering dissatisfied ethnic minorities proximity to public affairs. Such close contact provides a feeling of both control and security that an ethnic group gains regarding its own affairs. In general, such institutional proximity expands the opportunities for political participation, socialization, and consequently, democratic consolidation.

Saidmeman, Lanoue, Campenini, and Stanton ’s (2002: 118) findings also support Cohen’s analysis that federalism influences peace and violent dissent differently. They used Minority at Risk Phase III dataset and investigated 1264 ethnic groups. According to Saideman et al. (2002:118-120):

Federalism reduces the level of ethnic violence. In a federal structure, groups at the local level can influence many of the issues that matter dearly to them- education, law enforcement, and the like. Moreover, federal arrangements reduce the chances that any group will realize its greatest nightmare: having its culture, political and educational institutions destroyed by a hostile national majority.

These broad empirical studies support the earlier claims of Lijphart, Gurr, and Horowitz that power sharing and autonomy granting institutions can foster peaceful accommodation and prevent violent conflicts among different groups in culturally plural societies. Lijphart (1977:88), in his award winning book Democracy in Plural Societies, argues that "Clear boundaries between the segments of a plural society have the advantage of limiting mutual contacts and consequently of limiting the chances of ever-present potential antagonisms to erupt into actual hostility". This is not to argue for isolated or closed polities, which is almost impossible in a progressively globalizing world. The case is that when quite distinct and self-differentiating cultures come into contact, antagonism between them may increase. Compared to federal structure, unitary structure may bring distinct cultural groups into intense contact more rapidly because more group members may stay within their regions of traditional settlements under federal arrangements whereas unitary structure may foster population movement.

Federalism reduces conflicts because it provides autonomy to groups. Disputants within federal structures or any mechanisms that provide autonomy are better able to work out agreements on more specific issues that surface repeatedly in the programs of communal movement (Gurr 1993:298-299). Autonomy agreements have helped dampen rebellions by Basques in Spain , the Moros in the Philippines , the Miskitos in Nicaragua , the people of Bangladesh ’s Chittagong Hill Tracts and the affairs of Ethiopia , among others (Gurr 1993:3190) The Indian experiences are also illustrative. Ghosh (1998) argues that India state manged many its violent ethnic conflicts by creating new states (Such as Andhra Pradesh, Gujurat, Punjab, Harayana, Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Himachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Nagaland) and autonomous councils (Such as Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Council, Bodoland Autonomous Council, and Jharkhand Area autonomous Council, Leh Autonomous Hill Development Council). The basic idea, according to Ghosh (1998:61), was to devolve powers to make the ethnic/linguistic groups feel that their identity was being respected by the state.

By providing autonomy, federalism also undermines militant appeals. Because effective autonomy provides resources and institutions through which groups can make significant progress toward their objectives, many ethnic activities and supporters of ethnic movements are engaged through such arrangements. Thus it builds long-term support for peaceful solutions and undermines appeals to militant action (Gurr 1993:303). Policies of regional devolution in France, Spain and Italy, on the other hand, demonstrate that establishing self-managing autonomous regions can be politically and economically less burdensome for central states than keeping resistant peoples in line by force: autonomy arrangements have transformed destructive conflicts in these societies into positive interregional competition".

Federalism for Nepal

Federalism is essential in plural countries like Nepal because it provides cultural autonomy to different cultural groups within a country. By allowing ethnic groups to govern themselves in cultural and developmental matters, it lessens their conflicts with the central state. Many of the conflicts of the identity movements are in cultural issues like religion, language, education and so on. Once regional governments are established, either the contesting parties from their own governments at the regional level, and decides in those matters, and/or influence the outcome because their proportional presence at the regional level is more than in the national level. Thus, many ethnic and linguistic groups can effectively put more pressure to the regional governments. Under unitary system, numerous regionally concentrated groups have not been able to put pressure on the central government because their population and voice are small at the central context. Even if they are not, their nature will become different. Some of the conflicts will be regionally focused. Hence, many of the conflicts will decrease in intensity and strength at the central level.

The bureaucracy will also increasingly reflect the regional composition because the regional governments would hire local people in the administration. Bureaucrats with knowledge of local languages and specific local problems will be able to provide relatively more efficient administration. This will also reduce conflicts. Inclusion of more ethnic members into regional politics and administration will ensure more public politics directed toward regional needs, instead of irrelevant policies directed by the center. This will contribute to reducing conflicts arising out of mal-distribution of resources.

If minorities want some form of autonomy to protect and promote their culture, develop their people and regions, and self-determine their future, they are likely to struggle for it unless some autonomy is provided. The struggle might take different form in different periods due to varying circumstances. Even if unfavorable circumstances may lead to n on-actions during some periods, favorable conditions for mobilizations in other periods may lead to more activities, perhaps in violent ways.

The growth of ethnic movements in Nepal after 1990 is an example. Thus, to address the conflicts arising out of issues of identity and cultural rights that are inherent human aspirations, autonomy is essential. Granting of federalism would in all likelihood bring an end to ethnic insurgencies like the Khambuwan Mukti Morcha because it meets their major demand. It will also prevent the possibilities of other ethnic insurgencies with demand for federalism.

Territorial federalism can work for the benefit of large ethnic groups concentrated regionally but may not be able to address problems of the numerous low populated ethnic groups or groups that are not concentrated because they may not form majorities anywhere. For these groups, non-territorial federalism, as in Belgium , Austria etc. may address their needs. In non-territorial federalism, members of ethnic groups have rights to decide about their culture, education, language and so on by electing councils who have jurisdiction over cultural, social and developmental realms. The problems of the dalit and small ethnic groups can be addressed through non-territorial federalism.

Federalism and its critics in Nepal

The dominant group in Nepal often argues against federalism by raising the fear of secession. I have argued elsewhere that this fear is misplaced. In demanding only a few of the rights that mainly deal with cultural and social issues, the minority groups acknowledge that advantages of staying within the existing nation-state. On the other hand, devolution helps to avert separatism because granting of devolution meets substantial demand of the minorities. However, power has to be devolved in ways that make the state and minorities perceive benefit form it. Large numbers of ethnic groups with small population further minimize the secessionist possibilities in Nepal , if any. The lack of resources and difficult topography of settlement in may cases make the creation and sustenance of smaller independent nations difficult, more so when the groups are in a state of under development.

On the other hand, experience elsewhere demonstrates that absence of autonomy may lead to secessionist movements. Federalism was considered "slippery" in the 60s in Sri Lanka when the Tamils demanded autonomy. Today, autonomy does not satisfy the demands of the movement that arouse out of its denial (Stepan 1999). Hence federalism, in fact, may contribute in keeping a country together by satisfying communities have power over themselves, there is less need to secede; hence, a federal structure can keep different communities united within a nation-state framework. Where cultural autonomy has not been provided, many countries have seceded or are undergoing civil war or violent ethnic conflicts.

Many in Nepal ignorantly argue that a small country like Nepal does not need a federal structure. However, federal countries like Belgium , Switzerland , Israel , Papua New Guinea , Holland and Austria have less population than Nepal . This belies the widespread fallacy that ‘small’ country like Nepal does not require federalism. The difficult geographic terrain and the problems of transportation and communication, on the other hand, make Nepal effectively larger than its area and population indicates. The perception that Nepal is a small country is due to its sandwiched position between the world’s two most populous countries. In terms of real and effective population, geography and cultural diversity, Nepal is not a small country. In fact, it is the 40th populous country among 227 countries in the world as of 2002 (US Census Bureau 2002).

Federalism in not only in the interests if the marginalized groups, however. It is also in the interests of the dominant community because it lessens the underlying reasons for conflicts. Conflicts are more costly to the privilege sections of the society; hence as a toll for lessening the conflicts, federalism can serve the interests of the dominant community as well.

[Mahendra Lawoti received his Ph.D. from the University of Pittsburgh in 2002. Excerpts from the book " Nepal Tomorrow: Voices and visions" edited by D.B. Gurung. This article is reproduced in the readership interest-Ed ]