|
|
Abstracts
Panel: Federalism: A Challenge to Conflict Management in Less Developed Countries/South Asia
Managing diversity in Pakistan: Going beyond federalism
Federalism and potential Conflicts: a reflection from Nepal
The Baloch conflict: Nationalism, natural (gas) resource and the state’s reaction
Managing diversity in Pakistan: Going beyond federalism
Yunas Samad*
Formally Pakistan is a federation, however, federalism along with the constitution has only partially been operating for long periods in history. The paper assumes that democracy both on the national level and the local level are operating substantively and not just formally. This paper discusses the debates around federalism, considers the range of alternative proposals that have been raised such as separatism and confederalsim[1] as well as argument for improving federalism. It examines the pros and cons of these various arguments such as redrawing boundaries on linguistic lines and redrawing the boundaries of the Punjab into a number of provinces[2]. The paper then discusses alternative macro arguments and considers consociational forms for managing diversity and considering how it may be successful in addressing some issues but also identifying those areas where it will not satisfy the demands of some linguistic groups[3]. Finally the paper turns to discuss micro approaches to managing diversity and strategies for equality of opportunity combined with positive discrimination and a language policy that could be incorporated with macro polices of consociationalism[4]. Pakistan’s problems in managing diversity cannot be imposed by diktat and has to emerge out of the democratic process. Ultimately such important changes require consensus to be developed after a considered deliberation of the issues.
 *Yunas Samad is a professor of South Asian studies, Director of the Ethnicity Social Policy Research Centre at the University of Bradford. By training he is a historian. He did his doctorate from St. Antony’s College, Oxford University, and has taught and researched in sociology and politics as well. His main areas of interest are transnationalism, ethnicity, nationalism, and identity politics in Europe and South Asia. He wrote with Gayen Pandey, Faultlines of Nationhood, Roli Press, New Delhi, 2007, and his latest book The Pakistan-US Conundrum: Jihadis, Military and the People - the Struggle for Control, Christopher Hurst and Co, London, is out this ye
[1] Harrison, Selig S. 1987 'Ethnicity and Political Stalemate in Pakistan', in Banuazizi, A. &.Weiner, M. (eds.), The State, Religion, and Ethnic Politics: Pakistan Iran and Afghanistan, Lahore.
[2] Waseem, Mohammad and Burki, Shahid J. 2002, Strengthening Democracy in Pakistan:
A Practical Programme, DFID , London.
[3] Lijphart, Arend, 1979, ‘Consociation and Federation: Conceptional and Empirical
Links’, Canadian Journal of Political Science, vol. 12, no. 3, September; and,
Samad, Yunas, 1999, ‘Reflections on Partition’ in Ian Talbot and Gurharpal Singh (eds.),
Region & Partition: Bengal, Punjab and the Partition of the Sub-Continent,
Oxford University Press, Karachi.
[4] Goldberg, David Theo (ed.), 1994, Multiculturalism: A Critical Reader, Blackwell, Cambridge,
MA., p. 4.;
Baluch, Sanaullah, 2005, Mazloom Baluchistan, Balochistan Institute for Future
Development, Quetta;
Rahman, Tariq, 1996, Language and Politics in Pakistan, Oxford University Press, Karachi; and,
Rahman, Tariq, 1999, Language, Education and Culture, Oxford University
Press, Karachi.
Federalism and potential Conflicts: a reflection from Nepal
Bishnu Raj Upreti*
The main objective of this paper is to examine the process of federalisation of the political system of Nepal and its potentials of conflict and insecurity. The source of information and data for this paper is mainly the documentation of the ongoing political development by the author. The author is actively engaged in the ongoing debate on federalism in Nepal. The methods used in collecting the data were individual interviews, case-specific meetings, small group discussions, targeted questions. Nepal is the youngest country to adapt federalism after ending the 10 years of armed insurgency in 2006. Before Nepal, several countries had adopted or readopted federalism after armed conflict such as Mexico (1971), Argentina and Venezuela (more than once), Nigeria (1966-70), Ethiopia (1991), Spain, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sudan, Iraq, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Australia, Germany, India, Canada, Malaysia, Russia, Brazil, South Africa, Pakistan, etc. Experiences are mixed in terms of managing conflict in all these countries. Most of the conflicts in post-conflict countries are related to sharing of resources between states/provinces within countries and with neighbouring countries. The experience of Nepal too is mixed and many incidents that have taken place indicate that the situation is not promising. This paper, based on the research of NCCR North-South in Nepal for 4 years, presents a synthesis of the ongoing debate in federalism and indicates the potential areas of conflict and tensions related to the federalisation process in Nepal.
The expected findings are the development of the scenarios of the potential ethnic conflict that possibly lead to obstruction of the promulgation of new constitution and subsequent political tension. Though the federalism was long awaited agenda in Nepal since the 1951’s political change, it was not prominent before the wage of armed insurgency by the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist 1 ) [CPN (M)]. However, there is great confusion, conceptual contradictions and even strong resistance from one section of society on federalism. Though it was not concretely stated in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and only limited to ‘progressive restructuring of the state’, it was also not included in the interim constitution of 2007. But later political parties amended the interim constitution and included federalism. Since then, the Constituent Assembly is working on drafting a new constitution and federalisation of the country is one of the major tasks but not much progress has been made. Instead numerous contentious and contradictory issues have emerged. This paper analyses those issues.
 *Bishnu Raj Upreti is South Asia Regional Coordinator, NCCR North-South, Kathamndu.
[1] In January 2009 CPN (M) and Unity Centre (another communist party) united together and the name of the PCN (M) is changed to Unified Communist Party of Nepal (UCPN) (Maoist). However, CPN (M) is used in the chapter to avoid confusion while refereeing to text.
The Baloch conflict: Nationalism, natural (gas) resource and the state’s reaction
Arshad Khan Khalafzai
“Pakistan’s quest for energy security has recently run up against a resurgent tribal separatist rebellion” (Lovelace D.C quoted in Wirsing 2009, p. iv) in Balochistan. With the resurgence of this 60-year old conflict, forgotten Balochistan has come into the spotlight again, where the two main causes of the conflict - the Balochs’ struggles for political autonomy and control over resources - are often debated. Nationalist movements revolting against the state may contextualize their nationalism within subjectivities such as culture, language, traditions and the right to resources. Consequently, nationalism becomes a struggle between two opposing sentiments, two different kinds of nationalism. The Baloch nationalists’ grievances and rebellion against the Pakistani state, and its response to this rebellion, should be framed within an understanding of the region’s natural resources and the state’s treatment of the Baloch nationalism.
Various conflict studies (Collier and Hoeffler 2001, 1998; Ross 2004a; Brunnschweiler et al. 2009) suggest that resource scarcity may drive a conflict. There is a positive relationship between resource dependence and conflict onset, and negative relationship between resource abundance and onset of the conflict (Brunnschweiler, et al. 2009). In empirical studies of different conflicts, Collier and Hoeffler (2001) found that resource had a significant curvilinear effect on both the onset of and duration of a conflict. In their work, they (Collier and Hoeffler 2001, 1998) have demonstrated that resources have an impact on some types of wars (in which natural resources contribute to prolonged conflicts), but not on others. According to Ross (2004b), however, there seems to be little consensus on the validity of the resource-civil war correlation: The cause-and-effect relationship between natural resources and the onset of conflict might lead to the opposite effect.
Collier and Hoeffler’s (1998) model suggests that opportunities for predation in the control of primary commodity exports cause conflict. Resource-rich political economy potentially generates conflicts between the elites who hold political power and those who do not. The non-elite actors tend to stage a revolt against the state, which controls resources and collaborates with national and international private producers for resource exploitation to generate revenues.
Scarcity of resources is generally linked to conflicts using two mechanisms: it may trigger marginalisation of powerless groups by an elite (monopolising resources), and it could have a delaying effect in the process of economic development (Dunning 2005). On the contrary, a link between resource abundance and war is often seen as one of the dimensions of the paradoxical “resource curse,” (Brunnschweiler et al. 2009): When there are large reserves of natural resources every one tends to fight (Stiglitz 2006). The resources could become the object of the conflict and the source of the finances that prolong the conflict. Unfortunately, in a struggle to seize control the wealth and the resources are wasted on arms and in fighting. They may invite oppressive regimes, resulting in genuine grievances amongst a share of the population (Brunnschweiler et al. 2009). Pakistan’s “so-called strategy of conflict management” (Wirsing 2008) “pins its hopes on a military solution” (ICG 2006), therefore, “placing its faith overwhelmingly in the multifaceted and forceful suppression of the Baloch national movement” (Wirsing 2008, p.30).
References:
Brunnschweiler, C.N. and Bulte, E. 2009, ‘Natural resources and violent conflicts: Resource abundance, dependence, and the onset of civil wars’, Oxford Economic Papers Oxford University Press, vol. 61, no.4, pp. 651-674, October.
Collier, P. and A. Hoeffler, 1998, ‘On the economic causes of civil war’, Oxford Economic Papers, vol.50, pp. 563-73.
Collier, P., and A. Hoeffler, 2002a. ‘Greed and Grievance in Civil War’, Working Paper CSAE WPS02002-01. Oxford: Centre for the Study of African Economies.
Dunning, T. 2005, ‘Resource dependence, economic preference, and political stability’, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 451-482.
International Crisis Group 2006, ‘Pakistan: The worsening conflict of Balochistan’, Asia Report No.19.
Ross, M. 2004a, ‘How do natural resources influence civil war? Evidence from thirteen cases’, International Organisation, vol. 58, no.1, pp. 35–67.
Ross, M. 2004b, ‘What do we know about natural resources and civil war?’ Journal of Peace Research, vol. 41, no.3, pp. 337-356.
Stiglitz, J. 2006, ‘Making globalisation work’, W.W. Norton and Company Inc., New York.
Wirsing, R. 2008, ‘Baloch nationalism and the geopolitics of energy resources: The changing context of separatism in Pakistan’, April, viewed on 12 November 2009, <http://www.StrategicStudiesInstitute.army.mil/>
* Arshad Khan Khalafzai is the National Programme Coordinator at the National Commission for Human Development (NCHD), Pakistan. He is a development and disaster management (DRM) professional and a researcher with expertise in conflicts and Complex Humanitarian Emergencies (CHE).
|
|
