Home >> South Asia >> Nepal & Bhutan

     Email   Print 

Any feudal system in the Government is not acceptable: Upendra Yadav

Prakash Bom - 3/3/2008

The eight-point agreement between SPA government of Nepal and United Madhesi Democratic Front (UMDF) is historic because it has sensibly ascertained the constitutional provision for the federal democratic republic establishment through the electoral mandate of CA elections. Moreover, the agreement has guaranteed the federal republican state on the basis of regional and historical background of ethnicity and linguistics with the right to self-determination. It is needless to make therefore assertion or dissertation about the institution of feudal monarchy at this point in time in the contemporary politics of Nepal. But it is absolutely necessary to abolish its entire feudal system in the workings of government for the sake of proportional socio-political and economic developments of all people of all communities of Nepal.

If the statement "Any feudal system in the government is not acceptable" is the vision of Upendra Yadav for nation then it is noble and inspiring. But there are many among politicians and ruling elites who have or had had or had yet still have position in the government that they have hardly ever questioned the feudal system in the government bureaucracy to be radically restructured. Why don't they do? Obviously, the feudal system by virtue is based on 'Top-Down' rule – the rule of few over many without the consent of the majority in its government bureaucracy. If Upendra Yadav is seriously concerned, I am sure he is, then his statement – "any feudal system in the government is not acceptable" must come true in implementing federal governance system with the 'Bottom-Up' structure that can possibly eradicate feudal system and its elements with the proportional representations of all people of all communities in all units of the governments – central (federal), state and local.

How could that happen in a nation like ours, which has not a single blank page for such a system to write new history except for the many to be ruled by few? Therefore, I call Indian federal democratic republic, Nepal's mentor, the feudal democratic republic because Indian federal states do not have the local units of government for local people to form their government bodies with the right to self-determination of resident electorates of the constituencies that make an unit of a local government without central or state supremacy over its local resource management. Instead all the positions of the local government bodies of the federal states of India such as administrators, law enforcement officers, local judges are directly appointed by the central and state government authorities to rule the people as if they are second citizens. In many local constituencies of the northern states of India do not have even basic necessary government services such as law enforcement.

The evidence is similar in the local constituencies of the feudal Nepal up to this point in the history of Nepal. In my opinion Nepal must adopt 'Bottom-Up' federal system of governance structure in which the resident electorates of the constituencies of a local government elect the representatives for governing their constituencies with their local government's own local resources and management. The successful example of this model is the management system of community forest of Nepal. The local government's responsibilities can be limited to that of states and central government, because it basically manages local administration, law and order, health, education, sanitation, waste management, local revenue collections and etc depending on how much a local unit is developed.

Basically, what it demands is the elimination of all district administration positions of the government employees as supreme body of the local units of government that are centrally controlled. All feudal systems such as the appointment of chief district officer (CDO), district judge, district attorney, law enforcement officer (DSP), local development officer (LDO) and so on as supreme bodies of the local unites of the government must be eradicated. Instead elected local representatives of the constituencies of the local government form the bodies of the government – local assembly, local administration, and local court in each and every state of the federal democratic republic Nepal. Therefore, an autonomous federal state must not carry the same old feudal tradition of appointment of government employees on to its government structure to control the local units. If it does then the statement of Upendra Yadav is just speechifying.

But if it eradicated then choice is 'Bottom-Up' model in which the local assembly is the legislation and legislators are the representatives of the constituencies of the local government. Head of the local administration is the elected mayor under whom the elected local attorney and law enforcement officer administer. Likewise, under the jurisdiction of the elected local judge local court is governed. The electorates of the entire constituencies of the local government elect both administration and court representatives. All elected representatives have term limit. All the bills from budget to revenue, regulations for law enforcement, business, school and so on are heard and voted in the assembly prior to their implementation as per the constitution of the federal democratic republic of Nepal.

This is what is called 'Bottom-Up' structure of the federal governance system, which could not be unfortunately implemented in feudal India due the self-interest of the Ex-British ruling elites for power over many. If it had implemented, then socio-political and economic lives of poor could have been transformed in local level. Unfortunately, feudal rule in India still administratively restricts the democratic process of many to be ruled by themselves in their home constituencies.

The elites of India who live in same village, town and city together with their fellow poor people, who serve them as their farm workers, house workers (whom elites prefer to label servants) on daily wages basis without any benefit, do not hesitate to call them backward people of India. But had they let them govern their own communities on their own, couldn't have they done better? Would they have not been able to implement, for example, the federal law of India to ban their child marriage tradition? Of course as a part of the government unit they would have been obliged to implement federal law? That is to say, poor are devoid of their basic rights in both rural and urban India under the 'Top-down' rule of few over many system of governance.

New York Times columnist David Brooks has distinguished senator Hillary Clinton from senator Barack Obama on their theory of change in the current primary election campaign of the Democratic Party on Public Broadcasting Services at News Hour that senator Barak Obama advocates 'Bottom-Up' process for change whereas senator Clinton's is 'Top-Down' or status qua of few (elites) who attempt to resolve the crises from the closed meeting room.

America had succeeded from the beginning with the federal governance system that worked 'Bottom-UP' in the local level and over seventy percent of it still does. But currently the Americans believe that the administration of the President George Bush has inconsistently overused the 'Top-Down' power of authority by excluding the right of many. Therefore, senator Barak Obama's approach has given hope to those who were disinterested in the 'Top-Down' politics of power for change. As a result, participation in the Democratic Primary elections made the historical record with the astonishing increase among young generation.

The most successful 'Bottom-UP' federal government system is found in full functionality in the local units of the governments of the Western European nations (EU). The national integrity and stability of such nation thoroughly depends on its local units of government's self-sustainability for the local recourses management. That's why Western European nations are more stable because their local governments are most efficient in crises management on the local level.

On this question of restructuring the state, I am extremely delighted with the statement of Mahesh Acharya, member of the central committee of Nepali Cogress Party of Nepal in regard to the federal government system structure. Certainly, the power distribution between central (federal) government, federal states and local governments is the fundamental issue of the federal system of governance. Federal system also can be feudalized slickly particularly in the South Asian countries like India which is heavily burden with its age-old feudal tradition. Obviously, if federalism is feudalized as such in India then the central and state governments will exclude many under such governance mechanisms. This is what is called 'Top-Down' administrative logistics for the few to rule many. There are a few thoughtful politicians so far who have stepped up on the horizon of the contemporary politics of Nepal to see the detailed picture of the federal government structure that can eradicate the 'feudal' rule of few over many with the diverse proportional representation of many.

It is Upendra Yadav who has courageously stepped up himself as a federalist on the horizon of the contemporary politics of Nepal by challenging current political changes that might easily adopt feudal system in the government, which he has warned that it will not be acceptable for his party and the movement. But it is the question for scrutiny to find out what government mechanism could prevent any feudal element creeping in the federal government system. Obliviously, it cannot be the 'Top-Down' feudal governance mechanism if the mindset of contemporary politics of Nepal fails to adopt 'Down-Up' federal governance mechanism.

The federal state structure, in my view, must be based on the basis of regional and historical background of ethnicity and linguistics model. In that case, the dream of a gigantic state becomes self-contradictory on the basis of regional and historical background. Nonetheless, the formation of state must have provision for the local government structure in order to eradicate feudal system from the entire government practice.

It is hard to imagine a radical dissolution of entire feudal system and its elements in the government practice, particularly in feudal Nepal without 'Bottom-UP' federal governance structure that has mechanism for the self-sustainable local government units in each and every federal state. If that is the vision of Upendra Yadav for the workings of federal government system without any feudal system and its elements then surely his statement cannot just be the rhetoric. But it is a statement that demands a serious and thorough scrutiny for the radical transformations of the government structures in forming the autonomous federal states of the federal democratic republic of Nepal.