The assembly's mandate was to write a new constitution to establish a federal democratic republic. Parties were divided on how many federal states the country should have and whether they should be based on the ethnicity of people in that state or the geographical features of that area.

Nepal Runs Out Constitution Clock, Slips into Crisis

By KRISHNA POKHAREL

Nepal dissolved its four-year-old Constituent Assembly at midnight Sunday and set new elections after political parties failed to agree on the model of federalism the country should adopt in a new constitution.

In a televised midnight address to the nation, Baburam Bhattarai, prime minister of Nepal's Maoist-led national government, said the government has set Nov. 22 as the date for fresh elections to a new Constituent Assembly.

Nepalese Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai speaks during a press conference in Katmandu on Sunday.

"We tried our best to save the Constituent Assembly but we failed" Mr. Bhattarai said. He said there was a political consensus to hold fresh elections. "There was no alternative to fresh elections to collect the people's mandate," he added.

The announcement ushered in yet another period of political crisis for the tiny Himalayan nation. Nepal elected a 601-member Constituent Assembly, which also worked as its parliament, in April 2008 following a popular revolution against the monarchy in the spring of 2006. The assembly was part of the United Nations-backed peace process that brought former Maoist rebels into the government after a decade-long civil war in which more than 13,000 people died.

The dissolution of the Constituent Assembly without a new constitution is a huge setback for those who were looking to a new constitution, written by the popularly elected assembly, to chart a new course for the war-torn and economically lagging country. A few hours before the government's announcement, as it became clear that a new constitution was certainly not coming, a young Nepali posted on her Facebook page: "I think instead of panicking about constitution, we should rather lose trust in government and everything and stop having any expectations."

The assembly's mandate was to write a new constitution to establish a federal democratic republic. In 2008, soon after it was constituted, the assembly voted out the monarchy but failed to deliver a new constitution even after extending the initial deadline of May 28, 2010, four times. Parties were divided on how many federal states the country should have and whether they should be based on the ethnicity of people in that state or the geographical features of that area.

Nepal's Supreme Court said in November that the parties can't extend the term of the Constituent Assembly any further. That forced the political parties to agree on another sticky issue—the final integration of about 20,000 former Maoist fighters into the national army or back into society. Mr. Bhattarai, the prime minister, noted in his address the success of the integration process. But the parties reached a stalemate on a federalist structure.

That political division was on display outside the Constituent Assembly complex in Katmandu, the capital, on Sunday with groups supporting ethnicity-based federal states and those in opposition clashing with police.

Nepal is multiethnic and multilingual nation and the Shah monarchy that ruled for 240 years till 2008 promoted a Nepali identity and sought to promote unity through the image of a gems-studded, yak-furred crown that Shah Kings sported in their public and religious appearances. But feudalism and inequity are deeply rooted, with upper Hindu castes suppressing the rights of lower castes and ethnic groups. And ethnic groups, in the vacuum created by the monarchy's dissolution, clamored for states based on their singular ethnic identity and called regular strikes to make their point, hurting businesses and the economy.

Mr. Bhattarai said that under Nepal's 2007 interim constitution and the last full constitution of 1990, executive power will rest with his government until the November elections. Several political parties petitioned the country's president, Ram Baran Yadav, saying Mr. Bhattarai's decision to call for fresh elections was "unconstitutional." The president, a titular post, has yet to give final approval to the government's decision.

Intellectuals against ethnic federalism

HIMALAYAN NEWS SERVICE
2012-05-27

KATHMANDU: The experts affiliated to the Nepal Intellectual Council (NIC) today stated that ethnic federalism might invite instability in the society for next several decades.

Prof Ganesh Man Gurung said they were against ethnicity-based federal states for protecting social harmony, national unity and integrity.

“The states should be federated on the basis of capacity and geographical structure,” he said, adding,” We don’t need more than five federal states. And each of the states should spread from north to south encompassing Himalaya, hill and plains as per the distribution of resources.”

Likewise, Prof Govinda Nepal said there was a need of analytical discussion on impacts of federalism and its expenses before federating states.

“The only solution of present crisis is federating the country on the basis of capacity in a small number to minimise the state cost,” he said.

Bhim Prasad Neupane, former chairman of the NIC, said the political discourse regarding the federal states was heading towards wrong direction. “The Maoists are advocating racial ethnicity while communism believes in cast of mankind,” he said. “If the country is federated on the basis of ethnicity, the country will suffer from conflict for next five to 10 decades,” he claimed.

Former attorney general Yuba Raj Sangraula said the economists, sociologists, anthropologists, constitution experts and psychologists were excluded in the constitution writing process when they are inevitable to write the fundamental law.

Likewise, Political analyst Lal Babu Yadav said the state is represented by citizens rather than a single group or ethnicity. “I am a Nepali regardless of my race or roots. When democracy itself believes in decentralisation, human rights and inclusion, why need we talk about ethnicity? If we put the rights of the group ahead of its citizens, the country is likely to fall behind of time,” he warned.

The constitution could not be made due to ideological differences of the major political parties on the concept of federalism, said Legal expert Tika Ram Bhattarai.

He said, “UCPN-Maoist wants to make the federal states weaker without opposition parties, so that it could capture the state power in its favourable time.”

Advocate Hong Kong Rana and CPN-UML lawmaker Rakam Chemjong expressed their views in favour of social harmony and spirit of co-existence at a programme organised by NIC today.

http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/fullNe ... sID=333673

If the choice is for a Federal state
A federal structure in multiethnic countries like Ethiopia can be shaped mainly on the basis of ethnicity. There is no way out. (All the shout against EPRDF is very wrong!!). This kind of state does not exclude the formation of federal states based on other factors for example in Ethiopia Southern people’s multiethnic federal state. Also political manipulations exist in the argument for and against federal structure for example Ben Shangul and Gambella were created for political and other reasons. Anyways ethnic federal states are unavoidable.
The problem in Ethiopia is as mentioned in previous messages the federal structure was created from above by the transitional government and in haste. The Ethiopian people were not consulted. All opposition parties were not included in the decision-making. And Ethiopia was not allowed to take their time to study the pros and cons of a federal structure and other options. Once federal structure is decided upon the choice should be left for the concerned people. They should have decided which federal states they would have liked to join or not and all the rest for example Ben Shangul could have joined the Amhara kilil or the Oromo federal state and Gambella the Oromia state or Southern Ethiopia states but should not have been allowed to form their own small minority ethnic states. We can include Afar. We can question Somali kilil where 3 million people were given a large piece of the land, 1/5th of Ethiopia.
Why ethnicity is unavoidable. – 1) cost of administrating multiethnic states with different languages means huge and unaffordable cost to the state. 2) People with the same languages will develop their language and culture together and this is most of the time their choice and going against their choice will not create stability but postpones wars.
The previous 14 administrative regions of Ethiopia were based on Ethnicity and would have worked well with few adjustments. The current federal structure aggrandizes separation; the former structure gave Ethiopians a sense of unity.