The Road to Federalism in Nepal, Myanmar and Sri Lanka

Finding the Middle Ground

Michael G Breen, Michael Breen

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• eBook ISBN: 9781351581745
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Regional Studies
• Index: Social Sciences

Nations built on exclusion and assimilation, decades of civil war, widespread poverty, authoritarianism and the decline of democracy. Nepal, Myanmar and Sri Lanka are travelling a road to federalism. Institutions and ethnic identity have interacted to privilege some and marginalise others. But when the right conditions prevail, political equality can be restored.

This book charts the origins and evolution of federalism and other approaches to the accommodation of minority ethnic groups in Nepal, Myanmar and Sri Lanka. It applies a historical institutionalism methodology to understand why federalism has been resisted, what causes it to be established and what design options are most likely to balance otherwise competing centripetal and centrifugal forces. Breen shows how Nepal, Myanmar and Sri Lanka are finding a middle ground whereby deliberative and moderating institutions are combined with accommodating ones to support a political equality among groups and individuals.

1Introduction

1.1Prologue

Some 70 years ago, a new world order was emerging from the aftermath of World War II (WWII) and the decolonisation of large parts of the developing world. Nepal, Myanmar and Sri Lanka, ethnically diverse and highly religious countries, made formative decisions about whether and how the majority ethnic, caste and religious groups would relate institutionally to the smaller groups located within their borders. In the following years, the consequences of those choices and the institutional advantage that they embedded played out in patterns of power production and reproduction, and reaction and counter-reaction, culminating in new opportunities for transformative change.

The conditions are now in place for minority ethnic groups in Nepal, Myanmar and Sri Lanka to take their legitimate space in the state and determine their own futures. The years 2015–2016 were watershed years. Nepal enacted its new federal democratic constitution, Myanmar commenced a process towards changing its constitution to a democratic federal union, and Sri Lanka turned its parliament into a constitutional assembly tasked with finding a solution to ‘the national issue’.

When problems such as conflict and poor development have their basis in the political suppression of ethnic diversity, federalism would seem an obvious solution. It can accommodate ethnic diversity by enabling self-rule by ethnic minorities and inclusion in central institutions. However, as in other countries in Asia, federalism has been strongly resisted, and minorities have suffered. Many fear that federalism will lead to secession and national disintegration, and that new minorities will be created and marginalised.

With accommodation, should come moderation, lest the worst effects of intra-ethnic competition come to play. Nepal, Myanmar and Sri Lanka are finding a middle ground, where the rights of minority ethnic groups are affirmed and given institutional substance, and the risks of federalisation are mitigated by creating deliberative conditions across multiple levels to establish a new path towards peace, development and democracy.

It is not known why these countries, among others in Asia, have been resistant to federalism, even in the face of protracted conflict, and why it is that they are each now arriving at federalism. It is a necessity that they address the challenges associated with nation-building in ethnically diverse societies, and the conditions that have led to exclusion and discrimination. Is there a middle way that can avoid the oscillation between extremes, or the emphasis on assimilation or integration that has beset the evolution of their modern states? Unless Nepal, Myanmar and Sri Lanka adequately accommodate their minority ethnic groups, and moderate their extremes, they may continue to suffer the consequential impacts, and their governments may continue to be unable to deliver on their peoples’ aspirations for peace, development and democracy.

This book finds answers to these questions, by tracing the evolution of federalism and other institutions for the accommodation, integration and assimilation of ethnic diversity. It shows how the exclusionary basis of nation-building encapsulated a simultaneously reproductive and reactionary sequence that foreshadowed many of the problems that would be experienced in Nepal, Myanmar and Sri Lanka, but at the same time, precipitated a shift towards an accommodating federalism that would become an end in itself. In exploring the debates, the institutions and the interaction of prevailing conditions, I also extract lessons for federal design and new innovations to be explored and applied over the coming years.

1.2Nepal, Myanmar and Sri Lanka

This book focuses on the road to federalism in Nepal, Myanmar¹ and Sri Lanka.² There are many good reasons to study federalism and ethnic accommodation by comparing the cases of Nepal, Myanmar and Sri Lanka. Each country’s political history as a modern state has been punctuated by the politics of identity, eventually arriving at federalism as an outcome of civil war, as part of a ‘third generation’ of federalism in Asia (see Chapter 3) and, after a long period of internal debate about whether and how to accommodate minorities. Ethnic identity and the management of the associated political cleavages are common challenges to Nepal, Myanmar and Sri Lanka.

Prior to and following the establishment of their post-WWII modern nation-state, each sought to nation-build on the basis of the dominant group’s identity, to the exclusion of smaller ethnic groups. After a tumultuous political trajectory including reversions to authoritarianism, elites and civil society have recognised the necessity of managing, rather than suppressing, ethnic identity and cultural diversity. Minority ethnic groups in each case have demanded federalism to overcome the legacies of historical discrimination and exclusion, which have been perpetuated by unitary and quasi-federal systems, and authoritarian and democratic regimes.

The contextual situations are also similar – regionally, socially and economically – allowing particular variables to be controlled, while important differences in matters like regime type and the mode of state formation allow rival theories to be assessed. Ethnic identity varies within and across cases and each country has been at a critical juncture over recent years, enabling real time observation of the decision-making processes and debates determining the types and features of their federal systems, and the relationships between them. Most particularly, it is these institutional differences and their evolutionary paths that are compared. These similarities and differences are elaborated in Chapter 2.

I do not focus on the first-generation federal countries, India, Pakistan and Malaysia, all of which have been well researched and whose federal systems are more clearly associated with the decolonisation processes. Other countries in Asia are facing the federal challenge, such as the Philippines, but without the array of past institutional responses nor the widespread conflict that has precipitated the contemporary settlement processes. Further, I do not assess my theories with respect to other regions or other holding-together federal systems, nor do I consider the impact of my cases’ developments and emerging models on the international environment more generally.

1.3The origins and evolution of federalism

Federalism is regularly promoted as a potential solution to ‘minority problems’ (e.g. Anderson 2013; Kymlicka 2007a; Ghai 2000; Lawoti 2010; Stepan 1999; Stepan et al. 2011) and is the preferred means of accommodation by minority ethnic groups in Nepal, Myanmar and Sri Lanka. However, it has been the major issue preventing a modern constitutional settlement in those countries.

Federalism as a term is itself contested, with dubious connotation in the region, due in large part to the experience of Pakistan and Bangladesh, which split after a bloody war and external intervention. Federalism is most often used to refer to a specific type of state structure, being two or more levels of government, each with constitutionally-based powers and a direct relationship to the people,³ but it has also been given an ideological connotation, focusing on systems for ‘unity in diversity’ and ‘shared and self-rule’ (see discussion in Section 3.4).

There are many types of federalism, some overlapping. Minority ethnic groups often seek ethnic federalism, where unit boundaries are drawn to account for and to empower ethnic groups (Kymlicka 1995, 2007a), as compared to territorial federalism, where boundaries and laws are blind to ethnicity and cultural difference (Ghai and Cottrell 2007; Brown 2007). In Nepal, Myanmar and Sri Lanka, the political actors also distinguish between genuine federalism, meaning a democratic federation with equality between units and the centre, and quasi-federalism, as encompassing other forms of government that incorporate federal features but where the units remain subordinate to the centre.

Despite federalism’s apparent popularity as a tool to manage diversity and resolve conflict, there has been relatively little analysis in the literature of Asia and its varied and still evolving hybrid approaches, which have not been well conceptualised or evaluated. The emergence of federalism in particular is under-theorised, especially in the Asian region and with respect to ‘holding-together federalism’ (where federalism was introduced to prevent the break-up of a country, rather than via the ‘coming-together’ of previously independent units) (Stepan 1999). This is a gap that my research addresses. I develop a concept of an Asian federal system to guide my research and develop a coherent theory on its origins and evolution.

There are no known overarching causes or necessary and sufficient conditions that explain why a state in Asia chooses to accommodate minority ethnic groups, nor how genuine or effective measures will be (Bertrand and Laliberte 2010). A variety of requisite or determinative causes or conditions has been considered, including democratisation (Bertrand and Laliberte 2010; Galligan 2007); the method or mode of state formation, especially violence (Reid 2007); minority commitment to human rights (Kymlicka 2007b); religion (He 2007; Walton 2013; Raghavan 2013); and the role of international actors (Kymlicka 2007b; Bertrand and Laliberte 2010).

I use these elements as control variables and rival theories and instead build upon the theories of William Riker (1964) and Daniel Ziblatt (2006, 2004) regarding the origins of federalism, which I find are still most pertinent. I expand their focus from the conditions and mechanisms of coming-together federalism, to the holding-together systems of Asia. I distinguish between those processes that are essentially unilateral and concessionary, which bought only quasi-federalism, often in an authoritarian or presidential context, and those under which a democratic federalism is the most viable option. I undertake a historical comparative analysis using a historical institutionalism-based methodology, mapping path dependencies and the interaction of self-reinforcing and reactive sequences, and analysing critical junctures, federalism debates and incentive structures.

My key proposition is that holding-together federalism in Asia is established following an alliance of excluded minorities and regime change forces from the dominant group. I argue that necessary and sufficient conditions for the establishment of federalism are ethnic diversity, an associated infrastructural capacity and a moderate secession risk. If the secession risk is too high or too low, federalism will be strongly resisted. This applies whether the alliance seeks to overturn a colonial administration, such as occurred in India and Myanmar, or an indigenous ruler, such as occurred in Nepal. I demonstrate that Nepal, Myanmar and Sri Lanka are on a road to federalism, triggered by the identity-based nation-building that gave rise to a simultaneously self-reinforcing and reactive sequence. I also show why federalism does not arise under democratic conditions, unless as part of a transition involving regime change.

1.4Blending accommodation and moderation

Further, by tracing the evolution of institutions of accommodation and integration, and their impacts, I draw important lessons for the balancing of centrifugal and centripetal forces, which often compete to the detriment of stability and the development and inclusion of minorities. I argue that accommodation needs to be accompanied by moderation to mitigate the risks of secession and minority oppression, which are the most common concerns accompanying federalisation. Deliberative settings, incorporating inclusive representation and accountability, embedded in a competitive multilayered system with a degree of semi-detachment, provide the incentives for accommodating institutions to contribute to achieving just outcomes.

I argue that the experiences of Nepal, Myanmar and Sri Lanka show that a federalism designed to embed deliberative conditions and encourage multi-ethnic institutions, particularly political parties, at the centre while leaving space for ethnic parties and lower-level group autonomy at the unit levels, is able to balance the centrifugal forces associated with ethnic federalism and the moderating centripetal forces associated with integration and electoral incentivisation. That is, it contributes to justice as a political equality that combines accommodation and moderation and provides space for all groups and individuals to have access to and participate in political deliberation and decision-making. The cases of Nepal, Myanmar and Sri Lanka entail a rejection of the consociational paradigm, as a consensus government has only appeared at times of transition, and even then, with an oppositional element. The minority ethnic groups in these countries are seeking accommodation via autonomy and inclusion, with little regard for the role of the group in the centre.

Hybrid systems have been developed to find a middle ground. State-wide multiethnic, and unit-based ethnic political parties are more likely to emerge under hybrid federal systems, and multiethnic political parties pursue more moderate policies than those that are based on ethnicity. Mixed, sovereign, inclusive and multilevel institutions incentivise reciprocity and accountability. Such hybridisations are evident in these cases and suggest the beginnings of a new paradigm for federalism in ethnically diverse countries. Further, the cases show an empirical relationship between the extent that ethnicity is used as a basis of federal delineation with accommodation via proportionality and inclusion, and the security for, and powers of, the units (i.e. ethnic federalism tends to be more centralised than territorial federalism, on account of the potential for secession and marginalisation of new minorities).

1.5Chapters summary

The book is structured as follows. First, I explain my methodology and conceptual framework. Chapter 2 outlines the reasons for applying historical institutionalism to my research and defines my use of key concepts like path dependency and critical junctures. I apply that framework to the federalisation process, developing a conceptual model for the interaction of self-reinforcing and reactive paths along the road to federalism. I then develop my second conceptual model, which links antecedent conditions to federal outcomes, and detail my variables and their application in each of my cases.

Chapter 3 expands on the theoretical underpinning and logic of my theory and main proposition. I outline the importance of ethnic identity and the justice inherent in its recognition and accommodation. I argue that the persistence of ethnic identity renders mute arguments about whether identities are constructed or primordial, and define the context and key terms used throughout the book. In particular, when the modern states of Asia attempted to consolidate their colonial boundaries via an identity-based nation-building agenda, conflict and instability resulted. With few exceptions, these modern borders masked substantial internal diversity, which governments would come to accept as needing to be accommodated for peace and development. I then turn to federalism and federal systems, and their emergence in Asia. I distinguish between different types of federalism and define my use of terms.

Using this basic framework, I develop a concept of an Asian federal system for analytical purposes, incorporating the key institutions for achi...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Politics in Asia series
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of illustrations
• Acknowledgements
• List of abbreviations and acronyms
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Methodology and conceptual framework
• 3 Federalism, accommodation and Asia
• 4 State formation
• 5 The road to federalism
• 6 The constitutional settlement
• 7 Federal design issues – accommodation and moderation
• 8 Conclusion
• Appendix
• Index