Restructuring the state in Nepal: The difficulty of a federal bargain

Andre Lecours, University of Ottawa, Canada

Description

Why is the basic design of the federal system proving so problematic in Nepal? In the literature, the origins of federal systems are typically located in elite pacts seeking to create common markets and security arrangements or to provide autonomy to communities with a historical homeland. Not only does neither situation apply very well to Nepal, but the literature is mostly silent on what causes frictions in negotiations over federalism beyond the behavior of maximizing self-interested actors or the autonomist pursuit of a specific historical community. This paper will draw on historical institutionalism to account for the paradox of the difficulty to agree on federalism in Nepal despite the apparent unanimity between major political parties that federalism is necessary to manage the country’s diversity (close to 100 groups are officially recognized) in a democratic regime. It develops three complementary explanations for addressing this paradox.

 
Oct 11th, 12:00 AM

Restructuring the state in Nepal: The difficulty of a federal bargain

Why is the basic design of the federal system proving so problematic in Nepal? In the literature, the origins of federal systems are typically located in elite pacts seeking to create common markets and security arrangements or to provide autonomy to communities with a historical homeland. Not only does neither situation apply very well to Nepal, but the literature is mostly silent on what causes frictions in negotiations over federalism beyond the behavior of maximizing self-interested actors or the autonomist pursuit of a specific historical community. This paper will draw on historical institutionalism to account for the paradox of the difficulty to agree on federalism in Nepal despite the apparent unanimity between major political parties that federalism is necessary to manage the country’s diversity (close to 100 groups are officially recognized) in a democratic regime. It develops three complementary explanations for addressing this paradox.