What kind of federation Nepal should be and on what bases?

Wrong question! What is federation and does Nepal need a federal structure?

As long as you avoid answering fundamental questions and worry about the details you will always be lost?

A few CA members who came for the symposium on the last day objected to 'interference' on their home turf, arguing that one of the thematic committees of the CA had already 'decided' on the issue.

...and you can't name these people or which party they are from??? � Interesting!! It is also interesting the high regard that these CA members have for the general public and public discourse on the subject of the constitution.

There's no way we can avoid federalising Nepal. But let us discuss it without recourse to populism and without baggage.

So a patently populist position is to be discussed without expectations of polpulism hampering the debate, and a political slogan based on imaginary baggage is expected to carry none.

After 3 years of CA election, there begins to glimpse the overall design of the whole peace process in this year, both in letter and in its music. As for the letter, the main focus revolves around the ideology of the necessity of the moment: to deregulate the monarchy and please the Maoists, establish a federal system that none of the stakeholders knew how it should be and what it really means for Nepal, regain GPK's and the NC's lost weight. It really is a natural reaction after King Gyanendra's myopic decision to form his own cabinet but how can that political alliance, which tried to distinguish itself more for the former than the latter, confuse socialism with patronage party-cracy that created a huge deficit of confidence even amongst them and a long lists of jobs to be done that will take years for them to finish, even worst: they will never be finished with them at the helm of the power. Therefore, the pendulum has swung to the other side: tremendous public distrust which is natural. So, in order to reduce it and not to incur blame-game there requires a good orientation through common sense, political logic that's what I've been insisting for a long time. Koirala and family blame the Maoists and the Maoists blame reactionaries, there goes the show continuously. And we're in the middle as mere spectators. It really matters a penny but the country needs to move on, full stop.

 However, from there, the options are clear. The key point is to identify areas where the Federalism could be applied. However, the submission of people to certain clans is unacceptable and it's out of date, come on we've been fighting against caste system for years to establish ethnic states at the end? How foolish we've been for 60 years fighting for the Democracy then! The Maoists have this judgement badly founded in their bible, but all indications are that they will use racial card to target the power, preferably, to create social unrests in order to capture the state, this is where there idea of liberation is tinged with never seen conservatism. Perhaps now there is an opportunity for them to consider other options of modern federalism. And with other it doesn't mean to copy foreigners' models or something like that. We're enough creative and pragmatic to do it by ourselves. So, let's have the starting point of federalism engraved in our brain: NO INDIAN MODEL, NEITHER EUROPEAN NOR AMERICAN MODEL can be suited in Nepal. Of course we need suggestions and ideas and we should ask them politely but without any sort of complexity.

As for the music, simsimepanima is the most visible and popular, it seems that we have moved from the stage: the grievance, the complaint, the alleged mistreatment inflicted centuries ago are still the main reasons for this whole mess poached and we've never found a solution but it is not necessary to demand certain privileges but finest policies and polities. Finally, the drudgery of always, but far less metaphysical than during the days of BP Koirala, more materialistic, formulated in the language of old nepali business schools in times of facebook and twitter. For now we should demand that the CA receive and provide a competitive political paper, in principle, by the end of this month. If they give us, well, if not also it is ok,  but in both cases they should declare the REFERENDUM with the jobs finished and unfinished, what they cannot do is to say If falano agrees we can do it in a week. How badly people are treated by these political thugs. Damakant, the country needs to move ahead and there is no one imprescindible when she needs to breathe.

These things happen when Federalism is not an end in itself but only a means to political dominance. The Federalism is good for politics, but to create national consciousness. Some may have come to believe that 1990 constitution  would be politically more pragmatic and less ideological than the unknown Federalism that's in political market right now concerned by the losing existence of the nepali nationalism (Daura-suruwaal and Dhaka topi nitis for me) for essence.

  All indications are that there will not be any constitution neither federalism nor the PLA integration without miracle, the protection (read it possessiveness) that is perpetrated by the Maoists, the NC, and the Madhesi parties(I don't mention UML because it is going to be erased from our political map soon so it's not worthy mentioning) is the main cause we have nothing. Nepali politics at the moment, is still in the same place as it was sixty years ago. Pity!

Fully agree with Jange and other commenters here. No one's ever really explained why Nepal needs a federal structure, and nothing else will do, in the first place? Why/how will federalism make us better off? Is it economically/financially viable? Are there least costly alternatives?

It's amazing that those who pose as the thinkers, intellectuals and opinion-makers of our country, like Jayshi, see no need to grapple with these basic questions before diving headlong into the unknown!

It was the same with the 1990 Constitution. We got rid of it without any serious consideration. And if we are willing to be a bit honest and objective, it should be clear to us what a soup that ill-considered and thoughtless move has gotten us into!

It's unbelievable that, even with the benefit of hindsight, we're bent on making more mistakes. Like the CA, federalism is a Maoist idea. Before 2006, no one wanted it. We don't need to go federal just because the Maoists, or some interested groups, demand it. We don't need to go federal unless we are clear and convinced that it is necessary and will be good for our country.

Influential opinion-makers like Jayshi, Dixit etc. should have the guts to challenge the wisdom of federalism instead of accepting it in the fatalistic manner that they do.

If our intellectual and political leaders allow our country to become federal without adequate challenge to that idea, they will have failed us again!

>> "Fully agree with Jange and other commenters here. No one's ever really explained why Nepal needs a federal structure, and nothing else will do, in the first place? Why/how will federalism make us better off? Is it economically/financially viable? Are there least costly alternatives?"

This is precisely the point which articles like this prefer to soft-peddle.  Federalism has not been institutionalized in Nepal, notwithstanding its notional inclusion in the polity's formal designation.  The word alone has been enshrined in public discourse, as if it is intended to have some sort of talismanic effect all by itself [rather like the word "ganatantra"....].

To date there has been absolutely no serious, substantive debate as to the form or modalities of the proposed federal model.  Perhaps this is because the necessary first step of any such debate has been gratuitously skipped: why does Nepal need to introduce federalism in the first place?

The current discourse on federalism in Nepal seems to presume that the dichotomy between centralism and federalism runs neatly parallel to elitism versus ethnic equality.  This is precisely the wrong direction from which to approach any federal proposal.  Federalism, if applied appropriately in suitable circumstances, can be a useful means to increase the economic productivity of the federal units by granting them greater internal democratic control over their own fiscal, economic, and social policies.  As the author correctly points out, this is why the federal model works so well in the U.S., and he might have mentioned the Swiss cantons as well.

But, this requires that the potential economic capacity of the federal units outweighs the increased bureaucracy costs of federalism.  As someone who has lived his entire life under a federal system, let me introduce a minor point to the debate that seems to have been somehow overlooked thus far: federalism is an expensive form of government!  Having representative political institutions at both the federal and regional level inevitably multiplies the costs of government, necessitating taxes at both the federal and regional level as well as creating the additional logistical demands of carrying out elections at both levels.

Any argument for federalism needs to take this additional cost into its calculations.  In an economy the size of Nepal's, it simply doesn't make economic sense.  Vague claims of greater ethnic equality through federalism aren't going to skirt the unavoidable fact that it is simply an untenable model for Nepal.